Mr Chairman, before the House adjourned yesterday evening, I pointed out that the subsidy on bread had been reduced by R50 million, and that according to the Davin Report the remaining R150 million was also going to be phased out. This is probably one of the weakest forms of subsidy. Unfortunately I do not have the time to elaborate on this now, but we are nevertheless grateful because it is going to be removed.

But what is important—and the hon member for Paarl has already referred to this—is that in spite of the fact that the subsidy is being reduced by R50 million, the bread price has not risen. I also want to point out that this is a case where the producers really subsidised the consumer to a great extent through the contribution from the Wheat Board—an amount of R5 million from a direct levy from the wheat producers, and R10 million from the reserve fund of the Wheat Board. We are very grateful for this, and I hope that the consumers will also take cognisance of this.

What do the maize farmers say?

I am coming to the maize farmers in a moment. We are likewise grateful for the amount of R160 million, the greater part of which was supplied under that vote, and which was intended for the Maize Board. This is going to be used mainly to cover the losses on the importation of maize during the past two years, as well as for the shortages on the storage and handling of maize by the Maize Board.

While we are discussing maize, I want to say the following. We are on the eve of the announcement of the maize price, and I should like to see that a real effort also be made to bring about greater stability in this—I almost want to say risky—industry. As a matter of fact the maize industry has become risky during the past few years as a result of the serious drought. As a result of the crop failures we had to import maize at a loss. On the other hand in good years, as a result of the big surpluses, we must export maize at a loss, particularly in view of the present prices on the world market. Consequently I believe that a serious need has arisen for the establishment of a strong stabilisation fund. As a matter of fact this must be borne in mind when the new maize price is announced.

The maize industry is a strategic industry in South Africa, and consequently everything possible must be done not only to keep the maize farmer on his land, but also to stabilise the industry in such a way and achieve greater reserves that we will largely remove the political barb which can be detected every year in the determining of the maize price.

Mr Chairman, I want to conclude by referring to a subsidy which is provided by the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply. But it is a subsidy which deals with soil conservation, and because our agricultural land is a national possession that subsidy could just as well have appeared under this estimate. It represents an amount of R6,970 million. I should like to compare this subsidy with a painkiller which is used to help the body to relieve the pain so that the wounds can heal.

As I have already said, our agricultural land is a national possession and we must conserve it for our descendants. That is why it is necessary for everyone to make a contribution to heal the old wounds and enable our farmers to farm in such a way in future that we will be able to conserve this valuable agricultural land.

We are very grateful for the grazing plan announced by the hon the Minister. Perhaps it is time certain farms, which as a result of the drought as well as poor and incorrect farming practices, are literally blowing away in many places—the hon the Minister will know what I am talking about—and can no longer be cultivated economically should be withdrawn completely from production for a period. [Interjections.] To be able to do this, financing must be made available to the owners to make it possible to carry out the necessary conservation work and re-establish grazing, and also to enable the farmers to make a livelihood during those years while the land is recovering. I think it is the duty of every one of us living in this country to do this because we owe it to our descendants.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bethlehem will forgive me if I do not react to his speech except to congratulate him on the very good speech he made here and to thank him for the two or three useful suggestions he submitted to the House.

Today I do not actually want to talk specifically about the budget speech except to tell the hon the Minister that I believe that in future this document is going to form the basis of better financial discipline and better economic growth in South Africa.

Did you pay R22 000 for it?

The hon member for Yeoville asked whether I had paid R22 000. I want to tell him that I do not have that much money. Since the hon member for Yeoville is making an interjection, I feel it is my duty to congratulate him on his interesting article which appeared in last Sunday’s Sunday Star. It was informative and I think he should be given credit for that.

South Africa cannot afford onslaughts from the outside world that try to hamstring economic growth, stability and peace in South Africa. This afternoon I should like to refer to a specific report which appeared last year. I do not think we can allow the report to pass without referring to it in this debate and asking certain questions about it. When the Vote of the hon the Minister of Law and Order is discussed, we must hold a well-planned debate on this matter.

South Africa has many enemies. The enemies who act in an irresponsible way here in South Africa in order to present our country—and I am not even referring to the Government—in an unfavourable light abroad, are playing a particularly dangerous game. South Africa cannot afford disinvestment and problems from outside forcing us to our knees economically and financially. Whether we like it or not, South Africa needs foreign capital, and no foreign investor is going to invest in a country which is not politically and economically stable. For that reason we cannot afford irresponsible people in South Africa publishing this kind of report. I am referring to the report which is better known as the “torture report”. I hope that hon members will allow me to quote from it at length.

This report is known as: “A Study of Detention and Torture in South Africa—a preliminary report”. It was compiled by a certain Don Foster and Diane Sandler. It was published by “The Institute of Criminology of the University of Cape Town” in 1985. Mr Foster is a “senior lecturer, Department of Psychology, University of Cape Town” and Diane Sandler is “formerly researcher at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cape Town”. When we page through this report, we can first try to ascertain what their objective is. They say and I am quoting from the “Preface”:

They go on to say:

They go further and in the introduction to this report entitled “A Study of Detention and Torture in South Africa a preliminary report” they say:

Under the heading “Historical Aspects” they say:

This is a long document, but I am trying to read out only the important parts in order to get to the questions. The writers now explain how this “empirical study” was undertaken.

Later on in the document they say:

This in broad outline was what these people tried to achieve.

In consequence of these findings very interesting newspaper headlines saw the light—particularly in the Cape Times. In the Cape Times of 12 September 1985, the following was said:

It goes on to explain how these analyses were made with reference to who was tortured or hurt:

Then follows a detailed exposition of the so-called methods of torture used by the police. In all fairness, we must put certain questions to these gentlemen with reference to this. I maintain that the “torture report” is nothing but a political attack on the South African Government and more specifically the SAP, under the cloak of science. This is not a scientific study. [Interjections.] In consequence of news coverage on overseas television and the discussion in the UN, in my opinion, it is extremely unfair for this sort of thing to see the light.

Something which has worried me during the past year, is the systematic attacks on the image of the police. If one compares this report with documents used in countries in other parts of the world, one will find that the revolutionary methodology used abroad applies here.

I ask in all fairness: Who exactly are the compilers of this report? Why is Dr Foster, a lecturer in psychology, at the helm of a criminological investigation? Precisely who is or was Diane Sandler, the second compiler of this report? Who is behind these two? Are they not perhaps the “fall guys”? [Interjections.]

In letters and comments from the country’s leading criminologists and sociologists, the report has been described as unscientific. In spite of this kind of criticism from such erudite persons as Profs Van der Westhuizen and Frans Maritz of Unisa, Herman Krause of UPE and Van Zyl of Stellenbosch, as well as the former Judge President of the Cape, former Judge the Honourable Helm van Zyl, the convocation of this university has accepted it officially. I wonder what the Chancellor of this University has to say about this report. The report is full of political statements which have nothing to do with science.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question.

Order! Is the hon member prepared to answer a question?

No, Sir, I do not have time for that.

In a report, Foster said that they had received $40 000 from the Ford Foundation for this research. The question is how this money was spent. Does the Ford Foundation have an office in South Africa? Did they publish an annual report? Was the use of the $40 000 audited? Were the 176 nameless alleged former detainees paid for their co-operation with this money, or were the nine nameless questioners paid with it? The question is whether these nine persons were not perhaps also detainees. As long as the names of the group of 176 people and the groups of nine people remain secret, the report is not worth the paper it is written on.

I ask again: Who are those 176 people? Do they actually exist? What have they done since they were released from prison?

In a report in Die Burger Dr Foster claimed that he knew nothing about a film which was going to be made about torture. But I just want to ask him whether on 25 November of last year, during a lecture on the torture report, which was held at Groote Schuur Hospital, he perhaps said that he was writing a book about the torture report. I also want to ask him whether he said there that he was going to make a major South African film—a film that should be made— with scenes showing the psychological impact of arrests in South Africa under security legislation with approximately 20 people armed with sub-machine guns surrounding a house. He described the actions of those people as follows:

Does the proposed Foster film have any connection with the Biko propaganda film against South Africa which is going to be made in Zimbabwe in the near future? How did these people contact all the former detainees throughout the country; many of whom were probably detained more than five years ago? This report should be tested in a court of law.

I also want to ask whether this torture report represents a typical example of research by the University of Cape Town. The Government has already dissociated itself from this report. I think that this report should still be debated in this House and eventually tested in a court of law. South Africa cannot afford this kind of thing.

Mr Chairman, we have listened to a very interesting account of the report of the Department of Criminology from UCT, and I am glad it is on record in Hansard for everybody to read. However, what I question is the authority of the hon member for Overvaal to ask by virtue of whose expertise the report has appeared and who made the investigations. I should like to remind the hon member that over 50 people have died in detention in South Africa since detention without trial was first introduced in this country in 1963. Furthermore, the State has had to pay out thousands of rand in out-of-court settlements for claims for damages brought either by relatives of detainees who have died or detainees who claimed that they had been mistreated during detention. I do not know by virtue of what expertise that hon member sets himself up to question the authenticity of this report. There is no doubt that we shall debate this report in greater detail when the hon the Minister’s Vote comes up for debate in this House.

I have no doubt that I am joined by many thousands of South Africans who live in the real world outside this House when I say that never before has there been such depression and anxiety in this country. Indeed, not since in the darkest days of World War II have I observed such an atmosphere of pessimism over the future of our country. I may say that for many of our best-educated and well trained young people that pessimism has, alas, been translated into action— the action of leaving South Africa and emigrating to other lands which are now enriched by their expertise which, in my opinion, South Africa should have retained. This is a loss for which this country is going to pay very dearly in the future.

It becomes clearer to me as this debate progresses that hon members on the other side of the House live in their own dream world. They live in a cosy cocoon of White privilege and they are insulated against the pressures that are mounting up in South Africa both from inside the Republic and from outside the country. They are apparently blissfully unaware that if the present trend continues, South Africa will end up internally in a situation approximating that of Northern Ireland, and externally isolated from the entire Western World.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition correctly stated the other day, following one of the worst outbreaks of violence and police action when 28 people died in one day in the Republic of South Africa, that it was hopeless for the Government simply to rely on strong-arm tactics in order to bring the situation under control. Daily there are reports of what appears to be excessive police action and only yesterday we read a report referred to by the hon member for Overvaal of the ugly incident at Potgieters-rust in Lebowa where a journalist died in the police cells hours after having been arrested and where three other people were seriously injured. I hope the hon the Minister of Law and Order has instituted an immediate investigation into this ugly incident and that we will have the answer to the questions which I have tabled before the hon the Minister’s Vote comes up.

I will have much more to say about the handling of the Law and Order portfolio when the hon the Minister’s Vote comes up for discussion but, in order to try to avoid some additional deaths, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order in heaven’s name to instruct police and magistrates to desist from laying down ludicrous conditions to be adhered to at township funerals. [Interjections.] I recommend to the hon the Minister that he read the first few paragraphs of the Kannemeyer Report which had a good deal to say about this.

Take the funeral recently at Vosloorus on the East Rand. The Star of 4 April tells us that restrictions were imposed on the funeral by the Boksburg magistrate, Mr L Roets.

Those are political meetings.

I quote from The Star:

Was there ever anything so absurd? These restrictions, in these times, when all outdoor meetings other than funerals and sports meetings are banned, and almost all indoor meetings are banned, do not have snowball’s chance of being observed. The restrictions are in fact an open invitation to civil disobedience, and it is an invitation which is eagerly accepted on every occasion. The hon member for Sandton and I recently observed a funeral at Alexandra, and nobody—I can assure the hon the Minister—takes the slightest notice of magistrates’ or police orders, and so the law itself is brought into ridicule. Does the hon the Minister not realise that?

Sir, something like 10 000 people attended the Vosloosrus funeral as against the 50 people who were permitted. Are the Police then supposed to go in and arrest 9 950 people, Sir, who are all there illegally? It is always the Police who have the unenviable task of trying to enforce unenforceable laws and restrictions. So, of course, the usual ugly confrontation took place. The Star headline was “Four feared dead as police fire on crowd”, and the report went on to tell us that many more were injured by birdshot, pellets and rubber bullets fired after police had dispersed thousands of mourners, mainly young people who were marching to the local cemetery.

Women and children were blinded by tear gas, youths were punched, kicked and sjam-bokked, and not surprisingly, the report ends with the statement that that night, after the funeral, Vosloosrus youths petrol-bombed the houses of policemen and councillors in the township. What a hopeless state of affairs! Be that as it may, however, it was asking for trouble, Sir. Ipso facto, I must inform the hon the Minister, every funeral of this nature in the township turns into a huge mass political rally, as must of course be expected. It is an exercise in futility to try to prohibit those rallies or to impose unenforceable restrictions on them.

Sir, I want to recommend that every hon member of the National Party, and certainly of the Conservative Party, and maybe even the sole hon member of the HNP, should go to one of these funerals. Let them attend one of these funerals, heavily disguised, of course, as a human being … [Interjections.] Yes, and I would suggest to the hon the Minister of Law and Order, who has now acquired for himself a very fancy helicopter, that he should go there in his own particular little Airwolf in order to observe for himself one of these funerals. Nothing, I believe, will bring home to hon members more sharply the mood of the Black people in the country than an attendance at one of those mass political rallies which take place whenever there is a funeral held. [Interjections.] I believe that thereafter the delusion that the present unrest is but a passing phase readily controlled by tough police action, will be dispelled once and for all.

The other delusion—certainly, the hon member for Overvaal appears to be labouring under it—which apparently lulls the hon members of the Government into a false sense of security is their conviction that the world is not really serious in its threat to impose sanctions upon South Africa. No doubt the hon members of the NP are still relying on their long-held belief that the fact that we have vital minerals in this country which the rest of the Western World wants, the fact that South Africa—this is their view—is a bastion against communist imperialism, and the fact that we have this vital sea route around the Cape, is going to protect South Africa against these punitive actions. They have completely ignored the fact that the EEC delegation which visited this country early this year has already called for the strongest measures against South Africa. They have also ignored the fact that Senator Gray and his fellow legislators from the United States went back there determined to persuade Congress to tighten up the restrictions against South Africa. Moreover, when I recall all the ugly incidents that hit the headlines while the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group was here in the RSA, I am quite prepared to lay odds that that Group will present a highly unfavourable report. There were daily reports of police shootings and detentions. Furthermore, despite the so-called suspension thereof, there were forced removals, and there was the disgusting Moutse affair.

I am not much of a gambler but I would also lay odds that President Reagan’s Advisory Committee, due to arrive any minute will also not find much to gladden their hearts during their visit here. The Government should not lapse into a stupor of false security because the US State Department and the British Government have rejected Bishop Tutu’s recent call for disinvestment and economic sanctions against South Africa. The Government should remember that despite President Reagan’s former adamant attitude against sanctions, he nevertheless was forced in September last year to sign an Executive Order prohibiting the sale of Krugerrands etc. This action pre-empted much stronger measures being implemented by Congress but those measures have not been discarded by the Congressmen in whose names they were to be introduced. They have just been put on the back burner pro tem. They are going to come off the back burner unless the Government gets off its butt and takes cognisance of what is happening outside its cosy cocoon.

What I have said about the US applies equally to the UK and Mrs Thatcher who has been resisting all pressures until now. More and more is South Africa faced with economic, academic and cultural isolation from the rest of the world. Soon I believe we will sit lonely as a cloud at the foot of the African continent.

I can tell hon members that it is a totally lost cause these days to campaign overseas against sanctions and disinvestment, and I speak from personal experience. Unless really positive steps are forthcoming from the Government—action and not just rhetoric— repealing Acts of Parliament and not just appealing advertisements, I for one am going to stop banging my head against a stone wall. I have in no way changed my attitude about the self-defeating nature of sanctions and disinvestment, but I am not going to go on pleading for a lost cause unless the Government, as I have said, gets off its butt and does something which will be of some support to people who are fighting sanctions and disinvestment.

For seven years I have been warning this Government that it would be engulfed in a tidal wave of sanctions and punitive measures unless it at least desisted from provocative actions and then started to dismantle apartheid.

For the last time I make that appeal again. Stop the pass law arrests. Last year 132 390 people were arrested under the pass laws. Let us call a moratorium on this evil system. I asked for this in the no-confidence debate but it still continues, perhaps at a slower pace, but it still continues. Let us call a moratorium on this evil system which we have been told will be gone, but I can assure the House not forgotten, by 1 July of this year.

Reverse the incomprehensible decision to incorporate the unwilling Moutse people into kwaNdebele. Leave the Black township of Brits alone—where is the hon member for Brits?—and upgrade it in situ. One does not need to move people to improve townships. One can upgrade them in situ. The same applies to Langa near Uitenhage and all the other townships which are scheduled for removal. These are forced removals, which the Government promised it would suspend.

I agree entirely with what the hon member for Mooi River said yesterday. All the consolidation proposals that entail the removal of people or the transfer of jurisdiction like the Moutse matter belong to the discarded Verwoerdian dream, or rather nightmare. They have no place in a South Africa which purports to be engaged in the dismantling of apartheid.

Release the people who are still detained under the detention without trial laws. The hon the Minister can look at me like that but I say that they should be released. Stop arresting them as well. Believe it or not, Sir, I have just received a note saying that Mr Mkhuseli Jack and Mr Henry Fazzie have again been apprehended today! [Interjections.] It is absolutely disastrous! Does the hon the Minister know that this is happening? I want to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order if he knows that this happened today? Did he give the instruction, or has he lost complete control of his police and the security forces? [Interjections.] Nothing can be as crazy as arresting people with whom the Government should be talking, not being silenced and detained.

They are letting South Africa down.

Letting South Africa down, indeed, with a vengeance!

The Government should jettison all the crazy regional services council schemes which have been rejected by every local authority in the country that has examined them, and by all Black organisations as well.

What I am asking for is conciliation, not provocation. We badly need a period of conciliation in South Africa. For heavens sake, let us have a respite—a permanent respite, if one can use such a contradictory term—from all actions that enrage and incite and play right into the hands of the extremists who are building up enormous influence in the townships simply because these actions continue and because we have had no positive signs from the Government.

What have we had on the positive side? Other hon members of my party have already pointed out that we have had nothing at all this session and we are well into the second half of it. How far have we come in fulfilling any of the promises made by the State President at the opening of Parliament and repeated in that great advertisement that he issued later? As far as I can see, only one piece of legislation affecting apartheid has made its appearance, and that is the Bill concerning deregulation. It is presently with the relevant standing committee and heaven knows when it is going to emerge. Opening the CBDs in some cities is, in fact, the only positive action that the Government has taken so far this year. There has as yet been nothing on the pass laws. Where is the famous White Paper that we hear is floating around the Lobby? Where is it? When is the standing committee going to get it? When are we going to hear about the citizenship proposals that were promised in the advertisement and which the State President said were going to be put into effect this year? What has happened to those things? I cannot understand it. Where is the single education policy? How many departments do we have? Eighteen?

Sixteen.

Is this plan floating around among the 16 departments of education? Where are the positive signs of the earnestness of the Government’s intention to do something to dismantle apartheid? Nothing else at all has appeared to meet the urgent needs of this country if it is to avoid punitive measures and, even more imperative, to defuse the explosive situation enveloping the townships across the length and breadth of the Republic.

The hon the Minister of Law and Order— I wish he would listen to me for five minutes…

Louis!

Yes, Louis! It was reported in a newspaper that the hon the Minister of Law and Order announced the other day that the situation had returned to normal. Well, my word, if it is normal when the number of deaths …

Which situation or area is the hon member referring to?

Well, I think the hon the Minister was referring to the general situation when the state of emergency was lifted. He said the situation had returned to normal, but he must be living in a different country! That is all I can say.

I have never said that.

All right, he says he never said that.

I have never said that.

Oh, well I am glad he has never said that.

Why don’t you do your homework?

Well, I did. The hon the Minister was reported …

Do it properly next time.

Why does the hon the Minister not do his homework? [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister is reported wrongly, he should correct it.

I was not wrongly reported. The hon member quoted me incorrectly.

Oh, no, the hon the Minister was wrongly reported. [Interjections.] Well, all I can say is that the hon the Minister must really stop perambulating between his office, the H F Verwoerd Building, Parliament and his police training colleges and get out into the townships to see what is actually happening. [Interjections.] He is apparently unaware of the crescent of violence which has spread to an alarming degree, not only in the urban areas but also into the rural areas. City Press of 23 March names over 20 rural towns where this is happening. We know that White River and Nelspruit have hit the headlines, but they are only two such towns among a score of others all over the country. There are many other towns mentioned in City Press where violence is exploding in the rural areas.

I want to conclude by reminding this House that this is not 1976 when the unrest that started in June in Soweto receded into an uneasy but manageable quiescence. This is 1986 and we are involved in a low-key civil war, with rebellious young Blacks, convinced that victory is around the corner if only they can keep up the pressure since the entire world appears to be on their side. If a climate for negotiation is to be created, if something is to be done to counter the growing strength of both Black and White anarchistic elements in society—White vigilantes on the one side and Black comrades and guerillas on the other side—the Government must get a move on to dismantle those laws that deny freedom of association and freedom of movement. It must also restore due process. I am talking about all the laws which should never have been put on our Statute Book in the first instance.

Only then shall we be able to tackle the crucial question of political participation of Blacks and only then will South Africa stand a chance of avoiding the imposition of punitive measures by the rest of the world.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton certainly did not disappoint this House as regards the subject she chose on which to address the House. As usual she discussed law and order in this country and the considerable violence that is taking place in South Africa and that has taken place under the gaze of this House and of the country. Now, I wonder whether the hon member thinks that any member on this side of the House in any way welcomes the violence that is taking place in South Africa. The fact that violence is taking place in this country is not welcomed by anyone of any status or authority in South Africa. What astonishes me about that hon member is that those who have to see to it that the violence in South Africa is limited to a minimum, who have to see to it that there is peace and order and that lawlessness and licence do not prevail in South Africa, viz the security forces and particularly the police, are constantly having suspicion cast on them by the hon member for Houghton in one sense or another. I have known that hon member since approximately 1953 when she came to this House, and what astonishes me about her is that since then there has been no change whatsoever in her approach in regard to this matter. However I am not disappointed at what she is doing because that is how we have come to know the hon member in that respect. [Interjections.] What I do find strange, however, is something she said today, viz that over the years we had ignored the possibility of sanctions against South Africa, and as far as she was concerned she was no longer prepared to bang her head against a wall. She was no longer going to help us fight a lost cause.

The important Black leaders all tell the outside world: “Please do not impose economic sanctions against us.” [Interjections.] The leaders of our neighbouring states say precisely the same. In the past the hon member for Houghton and the hon member sitting next to her, the hon member for Yeoville, fought against the imposition of any form of sanctions against South Africa and that was something to be welcomed. [Interjections.] Now, however, she states that because change is not taking place in South Africa to her liking—by implication that is what it amounts to—she is now no longer going to help us in South Africa in the fight against sanctions. I really did not expect that of the hon member for Houghton. I have always regarded that hon member as a good South Africa. [Interjections.] I admit that she is a good South African and that she has always been one. The sanctions implemented against South Africa are not, however, implemented against this Government.

You sabotage us!

After all, they are imposed against everyone!

You are a saboteur!

I beg your pardon?

You commit sabotage against our efforts!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member entitled to refer to another hon member as a saboteur? [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon member say?

Mr Chairman, I said that he was a saboteur but I added that he sabotaged the work we do to prevent sanctions from being imposed against South Africa. In that respect he is a saboteur. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that hon member’s allegation is so ridiculous that I…

Mr Chairman, may I address you please? Is an hon member entitled to refer to another hon member as a saboteur? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Yeoville has told me that he used the word “saboteur” in the sense that their efforts are being sabotaged. I do not find that unparliamentary.

Mr Chairman, the hon member said certain other things, but apart from that he said: “You are a saboteur.” [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry that the time of the hon member for De Kuilen is being curtailed but we must have certainty in regard to this matter. Did the hon member say that in isolation?

Mr Chairman, it is clear that I used the word in the sense that he is a saboteur and that he is sabotaging our efforts against sanctions. I did use this word, nor do I deny that I used the word, but every hon member in this House understood it in that sense. [Interjections.] The hon member for De Kuilen understood it in that sense. [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order! I think that when I call for order hon members would do well to respect the authority of the Chair and maintain order. The word of the hon member for Yeoville is accepted. The hon member for De Kuilen may proceed. [Interjections.] Order!

Sir, if the hon member says that he meant it in a political sense then that was probably the way he said it.

It is undoubtedly so that this side of the House has the responsibility today to see to it that South Africa, the entire country, will navigate the stormy waters as safely as possible. The hon member for Houghton and the hon member for Yeoville also have a responsibility because they have important business partners in South Africa. They have very important business interests, and among their voters are certainly some who would want to ensure that sanctions are not imposed against South Africa. [Interjections.] Therefore I find it remarkable that the hon member for Houghton should say at this stage that she has lost heart. She has lost heart now owing to the terrible violence that is taking place and because we are not making the changes she would like us to make in South Africa.

I have in my hand a copy of a speech made this year by Mr Harry Oppenheimer. It was delivered a month or two ago. On that occasion he asked that pressure be exerted on Black leaders to participate in the National Statutory Council proposed by the State President. [Interjections.] Now that hon member must just listen to this. He has always believed—this is Mr Oppenheimer speaking—that a period of real change in South Africa will be a very dangerous period. He says:

This is the view of a man whom I believe to be a businessman of stature, not only here but worldwide. He is optimistic about the future. It is unnecessary to be depressed. It is a positive approach to influence Black leaders to participate in the statutory council. However, that hon member says that no changes are taking place in South Africa. For that reason she has lost heart. I hope that the hon member for Houghton will reconsider that view of hers because if she does not do so then I want to say that she and her party will steadily decline in numbers in this House. [Interjections.]

You told me that when I was alone here.

No, I did not. I did not tell her anything like that.

You said I would be gone the next session, and now here we are as the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

I am prepared to say that when we hold the next general election, that hon member, first of all, will not be here. Secondly, I am prepared to predict that only a very small number of her associates will be back in this House. [Interjections.] In fact, they will no longer be the Official Opposition in South Africa. [Interjections.] It will happen as a result of this attitude. [Interjections.]

Order! I now expect there to be decorum in this House once again. Now that I have resumed my seat, I want to say that I am astonished that hon members attach so much value to prophetic predictions. The hon member for De Kuilen may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Has the hon member for Yeoville the right to refer to us as “julle bliksems” (you wretches)? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member will withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I said: “You wretches want to have the CP as the Official Opposition.” If that is unparliamentary, then I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville has withdrawn it. The hon member for De Kuilen may proceed. [Interjections.]

Sir, I shall certainly not pay the hon member for Yeoville the compliment of calling him a “bliksem”. [Interjections.]

Today I should like to speak to the hon member for Houghton and a few other hon members on that side of the House. I should like to speak to them with reference to … [Interjections.]

Order! The dialogue between the hon member for Yeoville and the hon the Minister of Law and Order has now gone far enough. The hon member for De Kuilen may proceed.

I should like to speak to those hon members today with reference to an interview conducted recently by Leadership with the hon member for Houghton and the former Leader of the Official Opposition. I read here that the hon member for Houghton said …

Nice picture, is it not?

Yes, it is a nice picture of her that was taken about 30 years ago! [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon member that it still looks pretty good. [Interjections.] During this interview the hon member said:

Quite right. [Interjections.]

The former Leader of the Official Opposition then said…

There is just as nice a picture of him!

Yes, an excellent picture of him, taken about 14 days before his resignation. [Interjections.] He said the following:

[Interjections.] The next question he was asked was:

To which Dr Van Zyl Slabbert replied:

I do not know how one goes in “boots and all” but at the same time for only a limited period! [Interjections.]

A statement was subsequently issued on behalf of the party by the hon member for Berea. Quotations were made of the statements made by Dr Van Zyl Slabbert on a previous occasion during their congress. There he adopted a very firm standpoint that they should participate in the tricameral system. I now want to say to those hon gentlemen that I believe that Dr Van Zyl Slabbert placed them before a major dilemma because in the first place he said that he had been influenced by senior hon members on that side of the House to participate in this tricameral system. Those hon members deny it. They maintain, on the contrary, that he had influenced them to participate. I therefore think that this House is entitled to know certain things when a former party leader casts such a reflection on hon members of the party concerned. In the first place I want to know whether they are going to retain him as a member of their party. In the second place I want to know whether the hon member for Yeoville agrees that he is only going to participate in this tricameral system for a limited period, or does the hon member agree with the present Leader of the Official Opposition who, only a few weeks ago, told us to scrap this tricameral system?

It is a mess.

Now I want to know this: If they say “scrap it”, why, then, did they participate in it in the first place? Why, then, were they prepared to listen to the advice of a Van Zyl Slabbert? If those hon members say it should be scrapped, is the hon member for Yeoville to prepared to participate in this system, yes or no? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I answer that question? I want to ask the hon member for De Kuilen if he will be disappointed if I stay here for a long time still in order to haunt him? [Interjections.]

Then I am pleased, Sir, if the hon member says that he will still be here a long time to haunt me. In other words, the hon member agrees with the tricameral system.

Do those other hon members who were influenced by Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, who said “boots and all, but just for a limited period”, agree with the explanation given by Van Zyl Slabbert that he would participate in this system but for a limited period? Did they accept that? Did they accept the advice of Van Zyl Slabbert “that they would only be in here for a limited period”? [Interjections.]

I want to repeat the first question. If Van Zyl Slabbert placed the hon members before such a dilemma, if they were dissatisfied with his point of view and if he did put them in a problem situation, are they going to allow him to retain his membership of the PFP? Is it not time for those hon members to adopt a firm standpoint and say that Van Zyl Slabbert was wrong; we are here because it is in the interests of the country—this is the highest body in the country—and that they will remain here? He placed us before a dilemma but as far as we are concerned his membership of the PFP will be terminated. If the hon members of the PFP do not adopt that standpoint then I want to say to the hon member for Yeoville that it is pointless speaking about the credibility of this side of the House as he did the other day. He should consider his own credibility.

I was speaking about the credibility of the Budget. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville stated very clearly that no one could believe this side of the House because we no longer had any credibility. I think the hon members ought to answer that question before we can discuss this Budget properly.

No one will deny that South Africa has gone through a period of deep waters. We regard it is regrettable that we have been through this period at both international and domestic level, but I want to say that there is already light at the end of the funnel. This climate is being disparaged as the creation of NP policy. However, when we try hard to contain excessive expenditure and inflation by way of monetary and fiscal policy, and unprecedented unrest breaks out in our Black towns, one’s confidence in the economy must surely be shocked. If one adds to that that unprecedented publicity is given to the violence then the foreign investor must necessarily get a fright. No wonder, then, that millions of rand in capital have left the country, not to speak of the decline in the value of the South African rand. Pressure had to be exerted on our economy to cool it down, and for extremely good reasons. Foreign fears and pressure only caused further tension in the economy. But why do we not tell the outside world the truth as regards our true situation?

What is the truth? The truth is that an upgrading in expectations and living conditions of all people in the country is occurring. The wage gap is dwindling. The Blacks are nowadays doing work that used to be done by Whites. Change is taking place in innumerable spheres. Discrimination is being replaced by co-operation. Equality is taking the place of inequality. The negotiating power of every group is increasing. Negotiation is taking the place of domination. Surely that is the truth, Sir. And then the hon member for Houghton and the hon member for Yeoville contend that no change whatsoever is taking place. [Interjections.]

What I have been pointing out, Sir, is the truth in South Africa today. The people and the forces that want to make the Republic ungovernable and that deliberately created the situation of unrest are, however, ignored. The ANC, the UDF and other organisations that seek to destroy stability in South Africa, those who co-operate with criminals to commit violence, intimidation, looting and murder, are ignored. The hon member for Houghton only speaks about the police and about people who are dead. However she utters not a word about the fact that approximately one-third of the Black people who have been killed over the past 18 months were killed by their own people. She says not a word about that, Sir. [Interjections.] After all, we know that they are trying to shake confidence in the economic progress of the country. Indeed, they have almost achieved success in that regard. Those elements and forces are constantly provoking the forces of order and justice in this country and when the authorities take action against them in an effort to put an end to the violence, the security forces are accused of suppressing the process of law and causing greater violence. That, Sir, is the truth in South Africa. However the hon member for Houghton and her ilk in this House contend that this is purely the fault of the Government. I said that the opposition parties in this House ought not to play into the hands of the revolutionaries. Those revolutionaries will not succeed. Indeed, they are going to be severely hurt in the process. Ultimately they are going to leave the field defeated. Therefore the hon members of the PFP should not paint themselves into a corner by ultimately being associated with those people, who are not going to succeed in bringing about change in South Africa by means of violence.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for De Kuilen. It is also a pleasure for me to know him as a person. It is therefore a pleasure for me to speak after him because he is a frontbencher who knows his politics and is able to present his arguments properly. He is an example to us. He helps us backbenchers to control our quaking knees to some extent.

Today I should like to refer to some aspects which have continually arisen in this debate and which were dealt with in such a manner that it give rise to certain questions in my constituency, questions which have not arisen only as a result of what was said today, but as a result of what has consistently been said over a whole period. It is concerned with the redistribution of the State’s revenue.

This redistribution of State revenue is being presented in such a way by some circles that it seems as if the Whites who ostensibly pay the most tax, derive the least benefit in the end from the way the State redistributes the revenue derived from taxation. As the representative of the voters who elected me, it is my duty to determine whether this real-location of funds occurs in such a way as to be detrimental to the Whites and that other groups are therefore being benefited at the expense of the Whites.

Look at what everyone pays, not so?

We shall get to that.

I have conducted an investigation into this redistribution of revenue. I took this White Book—the Estimate of Expenditure—and I started working through it. I came across a few interesting aspects and I also satisfied myself that there were no mistakes.

It takes very little to satisfy you. [Interjections.]

I tried to make a study of it and I must say that the picture is quite different to the way in which the hon members who are now making interjections present it.

A very important principle is being mooted here. When one speaks of taxation is after all one acknowledging that in a Western country with a democratic system and a free economy, a certain principle is after all attached to taxation and redistribution. For example, can a pauper be taxed?

Here you are starting …

No, he cannot be taxed because he has nothing which can be taxed. Only someone who has something and who has an income can therefore be taxed.

Yes, you are right.

The second question therefore is that if a person pays tax, must he then, pro rata the tax which he pays …

Is it the Whites’s fault that the pauper has nothing?

No, wait a minute, I shall explain it to the hon members now. [Interjections.] When a person therefore pays tax he must also receive remuneration from the State pro rata the tax which he pays. That is what is being alluded to when it is said that money must only be spent on the people who pay tax—ostensibly the Whites. If we were therefore to apply that principle…

You know, you are beginning to develop the CP idea.

Very well then, but if we …

We must pay our tax and then it must be employed … [Interjections.]

Order!

I am very interested in that observation; but do complete it. Is the hon member, in other words saying that the tax which we pay must in turn be spent solely on us? [Interjections.]

Order! The fact that the hon member is interested in an observation is irrelevant. Hon members simply cannot be allowed to make two speeches simultaneously. The hon member for Langlaagte must take that into consideration. The hon member for Prieska may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

If we were to apply these principles of the CP, we would find ourselves in a very interesting position, namely that the tax paid by a rich person should in turn be employed for that person. It means that that person’s children …

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

Yes, if the hon member is prepared to answer the question.

No, Sir, I do not want to answer any questions now.

Order! The hon member for Prieska may proceed.

We are dealing with a very important principle here. If the State revenue derived from the rich man and is in turn used only for that rich man, then that man’s children will go to school free of charge; and the poor man on the other hand, who does not pay tax, will have to pay for the tuition of his children. We can apply the same principle to health. The man who has will receive health services, while the man who is poor will have to pay for them. As far as farming is concerned, a situation arises in which those farmers who have vested interests and a regular income and who therefore pay income tax will receive services and assistance from the State free of charge, while the young farmer who does not have a fixed income will not receive any services or assistance from the State. Is that where the CP is heading? [Interjections.]

Let us take this principle now—I do not agree with it—and let us then assess this Budget according to what the CP accept as a principle, namely that the money which is paid by the Whites must in turn be allocated to them in its entirety, and let us then see what we arrive at.

We have a total budget of R37,5 billion. On this amount personal income tax comprises R11,8 billion. And of this amount 93% is derived from the Whites.

Now do you see!

Yes, let us take a further look. The hon member must be patient, though.

This 93% means that of the total R11,8 billion, revenue amounting to R11 billion comes from the Whites. Now let us take a look at how this revenue is spent by the Government…

Own affairs.

No, on affairs which are important to the Whites.

Tell us how much is made available for the own affairs of the Whites.

Let us look at education. There the amount is R3,1 billion.

Are you now referring to mixed universities as well?

I am referring to education for Whites.

Mixed education.

For the security of the people of our country, which is of great interest to the Whites, the amount is R5,1 billion. [Interjections.] Does the hon member think that it should not be spent on that?

Tell us what White own affairs is going to receive.

The provincial subsidies for the maintenance of second tier government are R3,6 billion.

You are very mixed up today.

If I add these three items together which relate to the education of our children, the safety of our society and the maintenance of our infrastructure, I get an amount of R11,8 billion. Where is the so-called White money which is left over and which must be utilised for other population groups? There is no such money. [Interjections.] Only three of the 31 items under the Votes therefore use up all the White tax money.

Now let us consider sales tax. The State revenue derived from general sales tax amounts to R9,5 billion. Of this—it is impossible to determine how much exactly— between 50 and 60% is, for argument’s sake, derived from the Whites. That in turn is an amount of approximately R5 billion. According to the principles of the CP it is also so-called “White money”.

Let us analyse the expenditure further. An amount of R720 million is being budgeted for White health services; R27 million for White local government; and R23 million for improved conditions of employment. That gives a total of R1,2 billion. For Agriculture: Own Affairs the amount is R530 million and for Agriculture: General Affairs it is R420 million. For Water Affairs it is R29 million.

What is the total?

The total there is R1,2 billion.

Oh, R1,2 billion out of a total of R38 billion!

Yes.

That is a disgrace!

If I add this all up together with Police, which I have not even mentioned yet, and who receive R1,1 billion …

And they are there just for the Whites.

Yes, does the hon member think that the Whites do not enjoy a direct advantage from having the police? [Interjections.] Do the Whites not benefit directly from law and order being preserved in this country? Do the hon members think so, or should the money not have been spent on the police? [Interjections.] No, that argument really cannot be advanced. [Interjections.] Then there are still Justice and Prison services which we need in order to maintain our dispensation and also improved conditions of service for Whites, for which an estimated R500 million is being budgeted. In total the R4 billion or R5 billion which Whites pay in GST, too, is all used in their own interest. So in this case as well there is no so-called “White money” left over which can be utilised for other population groups. No, that aspect of the CP’s attack on us is not right. [Interjections.] Out of a total of R37 billion, R17,1 billion is being spent on functions in which the Whites have a direct interest and from which we derive direct advantage.

If we take this aspect of the CP’s policy further we arrive at many other interesting arguments. This money which is being utilised by the State, is not being utilised in the interests of one group. It is being utilised in the interest of South Africa. Surely our fundamental point of departure is that we put South Africa first, or have the hon members of the CP already forgotten that at one stage they also sailed under the colours of “South Africa first”? That was what gave rise to the establishment of the NP.

Is that White South Africa you are talking about?

“South Africa first” and “in the interests of South Africa” are the important principles. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sunnyside said that the assistance being given to Blacks had been concealed here and there in the respective estimates, in nine places altogether. Afterwards, after having mentioned some of these places, he went on to say: “It is quite a good thing Sir, that all these things are being sniffed out because they were hidden all over the place”.

Let us take a look at what this ferreting expedition of the hon member for Sunnyside produced. He went ferreting around in the own affairs of the Coloureds and of the House of Delegates. He went sniffing around programme 5—“Community Development”, Housing Aid, Foreign Affairs, Development Aid, Education and Training and Finance. After this ferreting expedition the hon member for Sunnyside arrived at the huge amount of R5,58 billion—let’s make it R6 billion. This is out of a budget of R37 billion. According to him this amount is being concealed in the votes so that people will not be able to see that it is being spent on non-Whites.

It seems to me some people have now arrived at the point where they go through the Budget with a fine-tooth comb, and in reality they do not see that the Whites in this country are trying to create circumstances in which they will be able to solve the problems of this country. It is simply a case of creating suspicion in order to mislead the general public. That is exactly what is happening; people are brought under the wrong impression as to how the Budget is in fact being spent.

I went to take a look at the charge sheet which the CP submitted to this House and I saw that it was not true. Taxation in this country is being spent in a responsible manner. I can tell the House that it is being well spent.

I want to say something about agriculture. The agricultural sector is experiencing problems and anybody who does not agree with this should go and take another look. The problems of agriculture are not problems that can be solved at the drop of a hat.

I should like to tell the hon the Minister of Finance that there are many economists in this country who are insensitive as far as the agricultural sector is concerned. They do not have their fingers on the pulse of agriculture and they have apparently forgotten what happens when agriculture is squeezed by input costs until it can no longer survive. Agriculture is something which cannot be easily re-established once it has come to a halt. In these times one should take a different view of the situation and I know that there are sympathetic viewpoints.

If agriculture collapses in a country one is caught in a situation of boundless misery and the rest of the country grinds to a halt shortly afterwards. One should not merely look at the economic statistics which concern agriculture directly, rather one should also look at the effect and consequences thereof. One should see whether a third of our economy does not perhaps depend on agriculture. If agriculture deteriorates and the farmers go to rack and ruin, then the State will not be able to escape the financial consequences. We cannot allow the farmers to be sacrificed to the financial circumstances of today as a result of inflexible and unsympathetic regulations within the economy.

If that were to happen it would create a social problem, a housing problem, a depopulation problem, an unemployment problem, a political problem and a nutritional problem. Believe me, that is the last thing we can afford in South Africa.

The hon member for Lichtenburg made certain statements about the hon Minister in charge of agriculture. He said:

[Interjections.] I can understand that it was the hon member for Lichtenburg who said it, but I should like to know what happened to Ferdie Hartzenberg? [Interjections.] My experience of these hon Ministers has been totally different to what the hon member for Lichtenburg said. I am grateful for what those men are doing for agriculture. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members of the CP are still going to get an opportunity to speak. They may as well give the hon member for Prieska an opportunity to complete his speech. The hon member may proceed.

I have the highest regard for what the hon Ministers of Agriculture are doing for agriculture and the farmers, for the long hours they work and for the way in which they are doing it, for the co-operation which they give to everybody, for their helpfulness and above all for their masterly strategies which they apply in order to solve the very pressing problems in this country.

I gladly support the second reading of the amendment Bill.

Mr Chairman, I shall not react in detail to the speech by the hon member for Prieska, perhaps bearing in mind, on the one hand, that on one occasion Mr Vorster, having spoken on economic affairs after the Leader of the Official Opposition, said that it was not a good thing to hear two people who know nothing about a subject speaking on the same afternoon! I take it that the hon member knows a little more about it. However, there is just one minor point I should like to raise. When we speak about self-determination—I shall not repeat everything about the subject—there are important facets of that concept that are relevant. This side of the House links to the concept of self-determination, a person’s right to be governed by one’s own people, to have one’s own Parliament and Cabinet, to have security services at one’s disposal whereby to protect the rights of one’s people, and the right to draw up one’s own budget. I think this is a very important facet because it determines what decisions one can make that one is able to carry out. This coincides with our point of view, viz that we must have control of the utilisation of funds, the tax, gathered from the White taxpayer. I want to leave it at that and perhaps discuss it at greater length on another occasion.

I want to refer to the speech by the hon member for Houghton, even though she is not in the House at present. I should like to refer to another lady who is also very prominent in South African politics today. I refer to Winnie Mandela. Am I correct, Sir, when I state that there has been a court ruling that she may be quoted?

I was not warned that the hon member was going to raise this question and I cannot give him an answer immediately. The hon member may proceed in the interim. Perhaps another hon member will raise a point of order on which a ruling will then have to be given.

She was reported by way of question and answer in The Star of 7 April. She is the spouse of a well-known person who is not with us and who, in a market survey on popularity, was designated by 49% of the Black people questioned as the person they would like to have as the next State President. [Interjections.] Bishop Tutu received 24%, I think the hon member for Houghton received 8% and the State President and I each received 1%. [Interjections.] This is the woman who is presented on the front page of Pace as “Winnie Mandela—mother of the nation”. I want to say at once that it is not my nation that she belongs to. In the light of certain statements made by her I think that this will become clear.

Winnie Mandela was asked:

The reply was:

Right here there is a point I want to make. People speak about the undermining of apartheid and they speak about reforms. Here is a person who speaks from a specific angle—I recognise that it is a radical angle— and who says that she wants to have nothing to do with it.

She goes on to say:

This is a very well-known concept—the protection of minority rights. It is a concept used by both the NP and the Official Opposition, that and the guarantee that there will not be domination of one group by another. What is the reaction of this person? She speaks about “the insanity of the White man”. In other words, there is no possibility of a guarantee of minority rights; that is the insanity of the White man. She goes on:

It should be done.

The situation is not that the PFP is going to dismantle it— the PFP does not even come into the picture. Reference is being made here to the dismantling of apartheid in its totality.

Hon members must listen to this:

The hon member for Houghton does not even qualify:

She goes on to say:

When we speak about the mouthpieces of Black people in this country there are a few categories that one can distinguish. I do not wish to over-simplify, but this is the radical one. No one, and that includes the hon the Minister of Law and Order, will in any way underestimate the impact of this radical element on the views of the Black community. These people do not expect us to dismantle apartheid. They will do so and they will not use kid gloves. It will be done roughly. Totally! Black power!

I want to try and distinguish the second category, viz the so-called moderates. I do not know how large that category is, because I do not know of any Black leader, apart from certain leaders in some independent states and self-governing states, who can be regarded as moderate, but the person who is presented as moderate and who is presented to us on TV as being almost certainly the next State President—I refer now to Chief Buthelezi—refuses to be called moderate. He is not a moderate and he hates the word moderate because moderation is associated with people who are “stooges” and with people who parrot the NP.

The point I want to make is that even if one pins one’s hope on so-called moderate Black leaders, there are those among those so-called moderates who tell one that they are only interested in one system—their ideal is one man, one vote. They will accept a provisional democratic system which still recognises group interests, but ultimately this Black person who is presented to us by certain people as a moderate leader states that he agrees with the ANC: “Those are my comrades in the struggle for the liberation of the Blacks”.

Are you a moderate leader?

Surely I am not arguing with the hon the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.]

Let us assume that there are many moderate Black people and one wishes to negotiate with them about political rights within a unitary dispensation, and let us assume that all 10 million or 17 million Black people to whom one has given permanence within one’s unitary state are moderate and one tells them that they cannot exercise their political rights through their homelands but that they can be joint decision-makers up to the highest level, what will they demand? Nothing less that what the White man demands for himself—except that the demands to which the White man is entitled, according to the Government, are reduced. [Interjections.] These reduced demands which the NP present to us are that we are now one country, that it is everyone’s country and that everyone, up to the highest level, must take part in decision-making.

Are you a moderate leader?

I am a moderate leader in the sense that what I demand for myself I want others to have as well. [Interjections.] Just a moment! I think that the hon the Minister will agree with me that those 17 million Black people—he can make it less if he wants to, he can make it 10 million—pursue the same justifiable political aims as he did when he was still a good NP member. At the time he wanted real self-determination for the White man in order to obtain the power of government or to participate in it. Whether it is done on the basis of coalition government, a minority veto, proportional representation or segmental or group autonomy, a dispensation for so-called moderate people is created that will ask nothing less than full participation in top management, the top structure and the final decision-making in regard to the whole of South Africa. That is not acceptable to us, because then one is immediately in the hands of a Black majority, even if they are moderates.

I am not going to deal with the article by Prof Arnheim of Wits at this point. I think that he has written two articles on “reform fundamentals” that are worthy of consideration. I think that he points out an important truth which is that when one proceeds with this type of reform it can lead to problems. I want to give the NP credit for perhaps having good intentions in trying to carry out the reform, but if one tries to bring about these reforms in a unitary system one does not forestall revolution; one incites it, because one is opening the way to this top structure to enable him to compete there to gain power. One will not forestall a revolution; one will encourage it.

I do just want to point out that these are not the only voices one hears from Black ranks. I want to refer to a Black author of the book Africa is my Witness who has made very important and strong statements. He certainly does not wish to intimate that he is the mouthpiece of all Blacks, but I think that this is a significant voice of a Black philosopher who speaks about apartheid. Right at the outset he says the following:

As a member of the CP with a love for what is mine and for my own people I appreciate the feelings in the heart of a Black man with a love for what is his.

A great deal of frustration.

If the hon member for Kroonstad speaks about frustration he must bear in mind that the word “frustration” is a very relative concept. If one wants to fly to the moon but is unable to do so one is also frustrated, but I do not regard that as a reasonable frustration. [Interjections.] This author goes on to say the following:

The CP states that we not only understand it, we can even endorse it. [Interjections.] I am now speaking about a Black man whereas Black people are sometimes depicted as if they only want to integrate. He goes on to say the following;

This is a Black man. One cannot ignore what he says. [Interjections.] He goes on to say the following:

He goes to say the following:

Mr Chairman, I am here quoting a Black man. It is a Black man who has thought far more deeply about these things than the hon member for Houghton. He has something that that hon member does not have, which is a national feeling and pride in what is his.

Who is he? [Interjections.]

I am referring to Credo Mutwa. [Interjections.]

Oh my God!

And then she still sits there swearing.

He is a witchdoctor!

Indeed? [Interjections.] Who are you? [Interjections.] What are you? [Interjections.]

I am a witch. How about that? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am aware that these words will not be welcome on the PFP side or on the Government side. [Interjections.] However it really astonishes me that this does not appeal to the hon member for Kroonstad. After all, he ought to agree with me. The author goes on to say the following:

He then refers to the Tower of Babel, the Jews out of Egypt, the Roman Empire that fell, India, Pakistan—all the good examples from history. He says that apartheid is:

Have you allowed him to join your party? [Interjections.]

Would the hon member also advise ex-president Kaiser Matanzima to join the CP?

Have you advised him to join your party?

No, it is not necessary. He can join his own conservative party and enjoy his own nationalism, which the PFP do not have.

Is he eligible?

In his own country and among his own people. [Interjections.]

*These hon members are now trying to make something ridiculous out of an important issue in human relations, an important issue in ethnic relations. However, do hon members know what is ridiculous? It is the fact that the leader of that party said to me and to my people a few years ago that we must not place such emphasis on group awareness, so that we can build up one great South African nation. That is the approach of that party. That party’s philosophy—I am quoting it more or less correctly—is totally unacceptable to those people who take into account the realities of South Africa and the realities of the world. That reality is as follows:

[Interjections.] A society of communities, as admitted even by Prof Huntington who on a previous occasion addressed certain gentlemen in this country.

What do the hon members say now? They can say that Credo Mutwa is this or he is that, but what do they do with President Kaiser Matanzima? The following is reported about the former president:

[Interjections.]

The trouble is that one has here a Black leader who praises the government of 1948 for the policy of apartheid because that policy gave his people liberty. A Black leader praises it but the Whites say: “Apartheid is dying. It is a concept which is outdated.”

A Black leader states that he is proud of the fruit of the tree of apartheid; the White people are chopping the tree down. [Interjections.]

The Black leader accepts his own fatherland as the fruit of apartheid. The White leader, and members of the White party, make their fatherland an open market for all races.

They speak of their own fatherland as a “so-called” White area. [Interjections.]

The Black leader nourishes an own nationalism on the basis of apartheid; the White leader makes of nationalism something ridiculous.

The Black leader unites his people on the basis of apartheid; the White leader divides his people by dismantling apartheid.

The Black leader says: “Apartheid is more important than foreign recognition”; the White leader allows himself to be pressurised by the outside world into dismantling apartheid. [Interjections.] The Black leader says: “Apartheid brings liberty”; the White leader says: “Apartheid brings embarrassment.”

He is talking about independence; he is not talking about apartheid.

Order! Will the hon member for Yeoville give the hon member for Waterberg the opportunity to make his speech. The hon member is a leader of a party. The hon member may proceed.

I just want to ask the hon member for Yeoville: If he accepts an independent Black state, what it is if not a separate state? [Interjections.] That hon member must not talk nonsense now. He is like the typical Europeans who speak to one about apartheid. One tells them: “But you have been living under an apartheid system for more than a hundred years.” There are separate countries for separate peoples. What is the hon member talking about? What nonsense! [Interjections.]

The Black leader realises that power-sharing with other Black peoples will not do. Matanzima said that to Mr Vorster. However the White leader says that he is committed to power-sharing.

The Black leader welcomes a future for his people in constitutional independence— with that I come to the hon member for Yeoville—and the White leader leads his people to a minority status in a multiracial state. That is what is happening.

The Black leader has become a Black president of his own country; White leader’s sharing of power with Blacks inevitably results in a Black president over White South Africa, according to the evidence of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. [Interjections.]

I want to devote a few minutes to the article entitled “Waarheen Suid-Afrika?” in the NP’s pamphlet Die Nasionalis. I have only a few minutes left at my disposal but I do want to make a few remarks about it. After all these years the NP is now asking “whither South Africa?”. [Interjections.] With all the news media at its disposal—television, radio and the newspapers—it is now suggesting to its followers its doubt as to where South Africa is heading. Indeed, they are so nervous about this question that they are going to hold a special congress about it.

The CP does not ask “whither South Africa”. We say that we have started along that road, and it is the road of separate freedom; it is the road of partition and of self-determination in one’s own territory. [Interjections.] That is South Africa’s destiny!

What is on the back page?

Even if I do not manage it this afternoon, I promise the hon member for Turffontein that I shall come back to the back page.

Just turn it over.

No, I just want to deal with the front page first; after all, that is the important page. Is it not? [Interjections.]

There are two photographs on the front page. Above the first photograph the word “co-operation” appears, and it is a mixed photo. On the right hand there is a photograph under the title “or suicide”. This photograph is of a car, and there are two people throwing stones—that is what they seem to be; they could also be petrol bombs—at the car.

It could be bread, too.

Yes, very well. I am coming to that. [Interjections.]

These are two photographs whereby the NP wants to tell us what the choice is that South Africa—I think it is White South Africa—is faced with. The one photograph points to mixing, which the NP call co-operation. I cannot see that much work is being done; the people in the photograph are merely standing and smiling. Therefore it is a case of mixing. And the alternative? Suicide. May I say, with respect, that what the NP really wants to say is not suicide but murder. This is not a suicide scene, unless the two people throwing the stones or petrol bombs are exposing themselves to the possibility of being knocked down by the car. Even in that case I do not think that would be suicide.

What is the point that is being conveyed here? The choice that the NP is putting before South Africa is mixing, or if one does not mix, one dies. [Interjections.] If one does not mix, then one must face death. If one does not mix, the alternative is murder or suicide. I do not think that I have summed it up wrongly, but is this the choice facing South Africa—mixing or murder?

That is the language of NP propaganda nowadays. If one does not abandon separate development then it will be revolution, murder and death [Interjections.] I refuse to accept that this is the choice that South Africa faces. The choice faced by South Africa is not mixing or murder, or mixing or suicide. The reasonable and sensible choice before South Africa is the road of separate freedoms. If it would be of comfort hon members, I would be the first to say that it is not an easy road. However, if hon members think that it is easy or cheap to move on the road of power-sharing in the direction of a situation in which a Black majority government governs South Africa, then they are making a very, very big mistake.

I want to say at this point, in all humility, that there are certain Black leaders and White leaders that are threatening us with Black revolution, with Black revolt. What will the hon the Minister of Law and Order do if the White people tell him that they are not going to allow themselves to be constantly intimidated by people who talk about Black revolution and revolt? At virtually every public meeting that I address I tell my people that they must not think that they have the right, as individuals, to take the law into their own hands. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kroonstad is an eloquent person; he is very sociable this afternoon. The hon member’s party sits together with the Chief Minister of the Labour Party in the same Government. Does the hon member accept responsibility for the statements by the Rev Hendrickse? Does he accept responsibility for the policy of the Labour Party. [Interjections.] After all, that is the argument. The argument is: Because we have spoken to the AWB, we therefore endorse the statements of the AWB. Surely that is ridiculous. The Rev Hendrickse says that we share the struggle of that man, Mandela. Surely those hon members do not endorse that. Why, then, do they try to hang around my neck someone who is not a member of my party? I am not a member of his movement. I have spoken to him.

You are an AWB man; after all, your party members are allowed to be members of the AWB.

Order! The hon member for Turffontein must modulate his voice.

In the Government of the hon member for Turffontein sits a man who says that he shares Mandela’s struggle. He is joint ruler over me. I have said in this House that I do not accept that. I want to repeat it: I do not accept that a man like the Rev Hendrickse rules over me and my people. I shall fight that as long as we sit in this Parliament. My time has expired; I shall take up this subject later with the hon member for Turffontein.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Waterberg and wish to say immediately I like Dr A P Treurnicht as a person; I respect him as a person. I have learnt to know him over the years as someone of integrity and a fine human being. I also respect the hon members of the hon members of the CP as people.

In 1986 politics the hon member for Waterberg is an extremely dangerous man to South Africa. [Interjections.] We are not going to run from this; we are speaking about him in politics. The hon member for Waterberg quoted various passages today. I have a few speech notes here but perhaps I had better set them aside. [Interjections.] Let me come to the aid of hon members. I have no intention whatsoever of replying to foolish matters.

Order! The hon member for Innesdal has hardly started; he must be given the opportunity of proceeding.

I find this interesting. I suspect the hon CP members do not like one to approach their political skin too closely. [Interjections.] I wish to tell the hon leader of the Conservative Party today that we live in a country of realities, of groups, of peoples and of human beings. By denying this reality in his party’s political statements of principle he is endangering the Whites on whose behalf he claims to speak. He said today—they always say this—that he was proud of what he was. He loved his people. I say to the hon member for Waterberg that there is not a single member on this side of the House today, not a single Nationalist and not a single Afrikaner, who is not proud of what is his own.

You are a quitter (“hensopper”)l

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Does the hon member for Kuruman have the right to say the hon member for Innesdal is a quitter? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I shall not permit them to waste my time today. The hon member for Kuruman is afraid to hear what I have to say to them today and that is why they are attempting to waste my time. [Interjections.]

Every Afrikaner on this side of the House is proud of what he is. We are proud of our language, our church, our identity and of what we are. We on this side of the House are proud of the language of every group in this country and it is in that spirit that we conduct our politics. I wish to put it to hon members of the Conservative Party that they will not brand us as liberal; they will not be able to present us in any disparaging words as people who do not care for those things that are their own. Where on earth do they come by their overweening arrogance? Do we who are sitting here not also have children? Do we not also have our own pride? Do we not also have self-respect? Do hon members of the NRP not also have children? Do they not also have self-respect? Do hon members of the PFP not also have pride and self-respect? Do they not also have children? [Interjections.]

Sir, the Conservative Party carries a self-assumed arrogance into South African politics which is dangerous to racial relations and dangerous to human relations. Consequently we shall fight it till it has disappeared from the South African political scene. [Interjections.] Now the Conservative Party is attempting to make us believe it has a strong, powerful and mighty position among voters today. That is certainly not true, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

You will live to see proof of that! [Interjections.]

It is not true, Sir. The emotion its members represent is running very strongly in 1986—that is true.

What will happen to you in an election in Innesdal? [Interjections.]

It is emotion which feeds on uncertainty, on riots and on tension in South Africa. They are using and exploiting that emotion in an attempt to give voters the impression—something which in any case cannot work to the end; at least not even for very long …[Interjections.] World history—there is no doubt about this—bristles with examples of those who stirred up individuals, peoples and countries with foolish emotions. World history bristles with examples of those who caused wars by inciting other people emotionally. If there has ever been a time in the history of South Africa in which we should keep cool heads, remain altogether calm, it is precisely now. I put it to the Conservative Party that it will be destroyed. It will be destroyed precisely because it is unable to keep its head in this crisis period in the history of South Africa.

Its members want to tell people it is P W Botha and the National Party that are responsible for everything which is wrong.

Only a few of you!

The hon member for Waterberg—and I regret having to waste my time on this now—spoke of a Black leader who said he was bringing his people together whereas the White leader said he was dividing them. I say it is a flagrant lie whoever it may be in South Africa who says that Mr P W Botha is attempting to divide people in this country. If ever there has been a leader who, at the cost of his own party and himself, has attempted to bring people together in the interest of South Africa, it is that very Mr P W Botha. [Interjections.]

I put it to the hon member for Waterberg that in a certain sense South Africa closely resembles America. The Americans speak of “a nation of nations”. In the same way this country, South Africa, is a nation of nations. Whether they like it or not, it is reality nevertheless. South Africa is a nation of nations. There are also people in South Africa who have the right to decide where they wish to range themselves. The hon member for Waterberg, however, did not take this into consideration. He said the Black leader declared he would not tolerate pressure. He said the White leader permitted the whole world to exert pressure on him. Can it really be true, Sir, that a leader of a political party in this Parliament can say we permit the world to exert pressure on us? [Interjections.] Have its members in truth not even attempted thinking of what sanctions are? Have they ever paused in their lives and reflected on the predicament in which this country really finds itself? I do not even want to expand on this here, Sir, as it would count against my country. Have they ever reflected on the predicament in which the question of sanctions has placed this country? Have they ever attempted to establish for themselves how we struggle to obtain basic commodities which we require?

It is because you are permitting communist flags to be flown everywhere in this country!

Have they ever asked themselves whether the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry can borrow capital for South Africa left and right in the world? Have they ever asked themselves how campaigns against South Africa are launched in international trade unionism?

It is because you permit communist flags to fly at your funerals! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member of Innesdal may proceed.

Mr Chairman, all I can say is that the hon member for Langlaagte today again finds himself in an all-time low (“laagte”) of which the end is not even vaguely visible. [Interjections.]

The hon leader of the Conservative Party said Black leaders stated apartheid brought freedom. He also said the White leader declared apartheid brought resentment. I wish to put it to him today that we on this side of the House are not afraid of stating it clearly that the legal apartheid measures instituted over the years led to resentment among people in South Africa in many respects. We do not flinch from this and are not afraid of abolishing them because South Africa and sound relations and the co-existence of people are infinitely more important than to tell people we need every second or third thing to survive. The hon member for Waterberg always says “like seeks like”. He is quite right. [Interjections.] Nevertheless if that is the case, I wish to ask the hon member for Waterberg why he is so concerned that people from different groups and communities in South Africa will not be able to fulfil that natural tendency of group seeking group or like seeking like without laws? What is worrying him?

The hon member for Houghton is sitting over there. The other day she called me “our Albert”. [Interjections.] I told her afterwards: “Helen, I do not mind if you love me but please do not destroy me.” [Interjections.] I repeat, Sir: The hon member for Houghton is sitting over there. She belongs to a particular group or, more specifically, a particular cultural group. The hon member for Waterberg is sitting over there. He also belongs to a particular cultural group; he has a particular cultural identity. The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance and of Trade and Industry, Mr Durr, of whom we are proud, is sitting there. He also has a specific cultural experience in the South Africa of today. My colleague, the hon member for Krugersdorp, once put it beautifully in saying that this country was too small to permit fighting with one another but large enough to permit us all to live together.

I should like to put this point to the hon leader of the CP. He said the Black leader realised that power-sharing was destructive but he also said the White leader bound himself to power-sharing. Let us put it to the hon leader of the CP in simple, everyday, colloquial language: This side of the House has started on a road of power-sharing with all leaders in South Africa and we shall follow it to the end because a country can only have power if the strength of all its people is united and the strength of all the people in the country cannot be united if they are divided and if segments and groups of people are rejected.

What nonsense you are talking!

I wish to tell the hon member for Waterberg I do not talk nonsense. [Interjections.] I wish to tell that hon member this party of ours is not power-hungry. We are interested in the inner strength of people. [Interjections.] We are interested in the force of initiative and the force of freedom—the force which comes to the fore in people in a country when they are recognised as people. [Interjections.] If one undervalues other people, if one rejects them or casts them aside, and if one fails to appreciate their humanity because one does not like their skin colour, if the CP does this, it will never have power to share because this country will be totally destroyed. It will be totally and absolutely annihilated. [Interjections.]

I wish to tell the hon members of the CP today—especially the hon leader—that it is well and good if the “pavilions of power” are packed but it is of no avail to a person if these pavilions are packed and one loses the match. The NP wishes to win the “match for the White man” and the “match for all the people of South Africa”—let the CP not doubt that! The CP elicits applause every time from the ANC, the PAC, Azapo and all the other radical factions with its anti-Black stories. If its members emphasise the rights and the identity of Whites in this way, they will ensure that polarisation is accomplished and there is nothing the radical factions, which wish to destroy South Africa, would like more than polarisation between White and Black. Every speech made by the hon leader of the CP and his people outside this House on the rights of the Whites and how the Blacks should stand aside contributes to this although it may not be their intention. I call upon them in the interest of South Africa to come to their senses.

The hon leader of the CP spoke about Black politics here today. I know I am bringing trouble on myself by saying what I am about to say but I shall do it nevertheless. We are coming up against political realities in 1986 which have to be dealt with by the State President and by us on this side of the House because there were assumptions in history on the political rights of people, assumptions which have not become reality in 1986, namely that all Black peoples and all Blacks could only fulfill themselves in the political sphere in their homelands. [Interjections.] Naturally this excites emotion. I wish to tell the hon member for Waterberg he should take a little trouble to read the So-wetan, the New Nation and the Weekly Mail.

Read Die Patriot as well.

Yes, it is also very important to read Die Patriot. Hon members should read those papers to see why there are Blacks whose political thinking is so radical.

The Government is not going to flee from radical politics in South Africa. We are Nationalists and we want to win the Black nationalists of our country to our side in the political sphere. There is no doubt about this. [Interjections.] We are not talking about the communists who want to destroy this country by force. [Interjections.] We are talking about the Black nationalists of South Africa who say they are citizens of our country and have rights here. The NP says that we will never reject such persons.

It is easy for the CP to say Blacks should exercise their rights in the Black states. Much of the radical Black politics we encounter originated precisely because Blacks revolted against that and reject precisely that. [Interjections.]

The NP has used its head, called a halt and said our road ahead is one of a balance of power. Let me tell the hon member for Waterberg that we totally reject the concept of “Black majority government”. [Interjections.] Let me tell him that we accept powersharing with Blacks in South Africa at all tiers but we reject the view that Blacks are the majority and consequently must rule.

I find it strange that the hon member for Waterberg spoke of “peoples” and “groups” but also mentioned a “Black majority” in the same breath. When he is defending his standpoint, Blacks are peoples, groups or entities on their own but, when he is attacking the NP, these concepts disappear and they become “the Black majority”. What folly is contained in this political argument! The Afrikaner who fights against rights for other people in the country rejects the past.

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

No, Sir, unfortunately I do not have the time but I am not afraid of the question. [Interjections.]

I find it interesting that, at a point when we have to put it to the people, there are numbers of Afrikaners and numbers of Whites who are running away. Those people are the CP. One does not run away when there is trouble in one’s country; one does not flee when tension flares up in one. [Interjections.] One does not run away when barbarous riots break out around one; one does not flee when reckless people start shooting at one another. Then one takes a firm stand. Our Afrikaner leaders of the past would have been ashamed of people running away when their country was in danger.

The CP should not make the mistake of thinking that we on this side of the House intend conducting “pillar of salt” politics in South Africa. The NP is not afraid of challenges. [Interjections.] We are not going to follow a road on which we have to operate “pillar of salt” politics—the type in which from morning till night one has to look back on what is happening behind one. Then we would become petrified. We are more interested in today and in the future than in the past. This does not mean that we reject the beautiful from the past; it merely means that we live for the future.

Concern is a fine virtue in life but its little brother panic is a very grave danger. Hon CP members should ask themselves whether they have not long since passed concern and are involved with his little brother panic. One is not rightist in ignoring facts. The hon member for Waterberg once made a brilliant speech on the occasion of a Transvaal congress when he said a person was not rightist in doing that. At what point he said a person was not rightist if one did that; then one was lying. [Interjections.] I wish to say he should read that speech. I did not make it but it was a fine speech.

The hon member for Waterberg flourishes on telling people what they are eager to hear. We on this side of the House will not tell people only what they are eager to hear; we also have to tell them what they ought to hear otherwise we are doomed. One cannot make speeches and be applauded and think one is going to succeed. They do not feed on ideals but on fears and we on this side of the House are really not prepared to feed on fears. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House stand for freedom in South Africa. The highest ideal of the NP is the ideal of freedom. [Interjections.] This means freedom for all people in South Africa; freedom for peoples, groups and individuals to participate in the political process. [Interjections.] It means freedom which releases people from the humiliation of discrimination here and there.

I wish to say to the hon member for Pietersburg that I shall fight tooth and nail and with all means at my disposal within my party to ensure that local option should not apply in the case of the elimination of discrimination because the hon member said people would stir up this country of ours at places like Pietersburg and elsewhere to such an extent with racial tension that it would just not be true. [Interjections.]

Do you stand for separate residential areas?

As the NP stands here it does not reject the principle of residential areas for communities. [Interjections.] We do not reject this. Let me tell the hon member for Rissik we have made many good modifications to this legislation. One of these is opening up business districts. In addition, the hon member for Rissik still belonged to the NP when we permitted exceptions to that legislation by means of permits. [Interjections.]

I hardly like to say—it is a dreadful statement to make but it is true—that if we had taken another road with a man like Breyten Breytenbach and his wife—I do not want to discuss this as it is history—we could have saved our country a great deal of grief and money. Consequently I say the NP does not reject the principle of the Group Areas Act but we are prepared to adapt it dramatically in the interest of groups and of the White in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The danger is not that the hon member for Waterberg is appealing for confrontation. Does the House know what the danger is? It is that the hon member for Waterberg either does not know that his words can lead to confrontation or that he does not care. I do not accept that he does not care but I wish to request him to count his words in the interest of South Africa.

I now wish to make this clear to the hon leader of the CP. A political leader who wants this country white is helping to make it Red. [Interjections.] CP members need not say it is not racism and that they are not prejudiced because we see this. Just look at the amendment moved by the hon member for Sunnyside. It is foolish to speak of “White taxation” in South Africa. Where does one find something like “White taxation”? Taxation is colour-blind.

I now wish to put a question to the hon leader of the CP: Does he approve if there is a poor White voter in Innesdal with two or three children at school costing the State, say, R4 500 per annum? Does he approve of the fact that this man who perhaps does not pay tax should be assisted in the education of his children at school by a Black businessman who does pay tax? Is the hon member in favour of this? [Interjections.] The matter is becoming absurd.

Do hon CP members think that tax is collected from companies in this country who have their work done only by Whites? Do they really think this? [Interjections.] Do they think gold mines, which pay an enormous amount of tax, are worked by White miners from one constituency or another? Surely that is folly.

There is an interaction between everything. The Government collects tax and spends it in the interest of all the inhabitants of the State. We all and I myself wish to tell the hon the Minister of Finance we are proud of a man who is not afraid of applying the income from taxation in this beautiful country to the upliftment of people and for infrastructures so that all the people of this country will ultimately have something to lose. [Interjections.] There are too many people in South Africa with nothing to lose. We cannot succeed with spiralling riots in our midst; we have to get them out of the way.

I regret my time has expired—I unfortunately devoted too much of it to the hon leader of the CP. Let me say to hon members of the CP: Much of that rioting has to do with politics and the political party running away from this is murdering the White and our children’s future; it is not only committing suicide.

On behalf of this side of the House and in the interest of our children, White as well as other children who want a future, I say to the hon the Minister this Budget is first-rate and we wish him everything of the best. We shall not flee from the CP or flinch. We are going to sweep it from the political scene with its foolish, irresponsible and reckless politics. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Innesdal is not a peashooter; he is a 30,06. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Waterberg after whom he spoke thinks he is a 30,06, but he is just a peashooter!

We had a typical example of a hat-stand preacher of old this afternoon. He took a few hats, hung them up and shot them down. He is intensely fond of quoting people very selectively. We remember him like that over the years.

I wish to interrupt myself. I have the same regard and appreciation for that member as a person as the hon member for Innesdal expressed as a short while ago. As regards his politics and their style, I thank the Lord he is no longer the NP leader in my province. [Interjections.]

We all have vivid recollections of his 666 stories after the referendum. We remember the innuendo he used at Ellis Park to exploit people and play on their consciences about who was chosen and who not. We know what ulcers he gave Mr Vorster, who was his leader at the time, with various pronouncements. It came to such a pass that, when he was nominated as the NP candidate in the Waterberg constituency, Mr Vorster asked him: “Where do you stand? Are you a Nationalist or not?”

Before the hon member appeared in the House, Mr Vorster doubted his Nationalism. There are scores of such matters I could mention this afternoon.

The hon member quoted a single Black here this afternoon in support of his policy as it were. Nevertheless I could quote ten, or rather a thousand, to prove the opposite.

Quote them!

I shall quote them for the hon temporary, absconding member for Koedoespoort’s benefit. [Interjections.] He asked me to quote someone. In 1982 an academic from one of the universities approached me after the split of the old CP because this has been a new CP sitting here now since its hijacking of HNP policy.

Where is the hon member for Sasolburg? [Interjections.] See where he is sitting! He is sitting over there with the NP. These CPs cause him intense embarrassment. [Interjections.]

The CP has hijacked the HNP policy lock, stock and barrel. All that remains to be taken is the so-called language clause which provides that Afrikaans is to be the single official language in South Africa. When the New CPs hijacked the AWBs from the HNP as well, Mr Jaap Marais rebelled.

You have the ANC!

So says my good friend, the hon member Mr Theunissen. And I voted for him to come and sit in this Parliament! [Interjections.] He dropped me and absconded. I want that vote back. Now he has also left Marico where he was the MP. He is in the Free State and is on the point of fleeing to Lesotho. That is where he belongs. [Interjections.]

I want to revert to that academic who told me that the hon member for Koedoespoort, after the old CP breakaway …

Order! There is far too much noise.

After the old CP broke away from the NP with an NP policy, it hijacked the HNP policy and subsequently took over that of the AWB.

What did you tell him?

I shall return to that in a moment.

I want to put a question to the hon member for Waterberg this afternoon. That man told me …

Who is he?

I shall tell the hon member if he comes to my office and I shall let him do an about turn there too. [Interjections.] That academic who is Coloured—not Booysen, the CP man …

It is a Mr X.

No, I shall give his name to the hon member later this afternoon if there is time. He said: “We cannot wait for the day when Dr Treurnicht comes into power because that day will be the start of the revolution.” [Interjections.] I am quoting a man this afternoon because, if that hon member quotes people, I can quote thousands.

I now wish to make the following categoric statement: After the hon member for Prieska spoke about farmers’ problems and misery, I expected the hon member for Waterberg, who represents an agricultural constituency, would at least have spoken on the interests of his farmers in the Waterberg in the debate this afternoon. Sir, do you know what the inhabitants of the Waterberg say about Dr Treurnicht? When they nominated him, he promised to buy a small farm in the Waterberg …

Order! I should like to point out to the hon member that hon members in this House are not referred to by name. They are referred to as representatives of their constituencies or as hon members.

The hon member for Waterberg promised them he would buy himself a small farm in the Waterberg to identify himself with them.

That is untrue!

A man saying that is a liar.

He does not go there.

Another lie!

I expected him to make an appeal on behalf of the interests of that part of the country which includes his constituency and is also a drought-stricken area. [Interjections.] He has not once made a single appeal in this House on behalf of his constituency and the farmers of South Africa.

Another lie!

That is no lie but a fact and the reason why my thanks go this afternoon to both the hon Ministers concerned with agriculture for what they are doing for the farmers of South Africa. I am very pleased the hon member for Graaff-Reinet—we all know he is the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply—is present so that I may thank him personally.

In the debate on the Additional Appropriation of the hon the Minister of Finance I spoke on this situation and about the 10% subsidy on bank loan interest to those farmers in affected areas. That means farmers receive a 10% subsidy and have to pay only 4% effectively. The hon the Minister of Finance granted it and the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply announced it. I have it here in my hand and I have a message from the Waterberg, where I was during the past Easter weekend, to the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply and to the hon the Minister of Finance. Those farmers all along the Crocodile River down as far as the Limpopo all said: “Tell Sarel Hayward we say thank you. We do not see Andries Treurnicht here.” Mr Chairman, they were referring to the hon member for Waterberg. [Interjections.]

That is an untruth!

I also have the hon the Minister of Finance’s letter with me in which he gave me confirmation of the announcement made by the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply in this House as regards border areas. A special committee was appointed to investigate their situation. The work has been done and we hope that within a fortnight exceptional and further announcements will be made regarding those farmers. I actually interrupted myself but I was prompted to make these remarks about agriculture on looking at the hon member for Waterberg. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Waterberg made the statement that he and the State President had an equally great or equally small following in this country. To make such a statement is absolute arrogance from a quasileader like the hon member for Waterberg who wants to become the State President of this country.

That is the reason why he is sitting there. He wanted to become the Prime Minister of this country but he could not reach there through the NP caucus so he broke away and deserted. The hon member for Lichtenburg, according to his close friends, left because he wanted to become the Minister of Agriculture. When the State President appointed the hon the Minister of Manpower as the Minister of Agriculture, however, he was so frustrated that he took his hat and left. [Interjections.] We are all from the same Tukkies table and this also applies to the hon member for Rissik. We know what we are talking about in making these comments. [Interjections.]

General opinion out there is that the vast majority of Whites in this country do not accept the hon member for Waterberg as the representative of Whites in South Africa. I would also say all the Black and members of colour of the population say the greatest chaos this country have ever seen would erupt the day the hon member for Waterberg came to power in this land because they say he is the greatest rightist radical in this country. [Interjections.] I do not agree, that he is the greatest rightist radical; he is number two—Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche is number one.

In this regard I want to ask the hon member for Waterberg the same question I have been asking him for years since the old CP broke away from the NP and became the new CP, namely: What does it think of the AWB policy? [Interjections.] The hon member for Waterberg must tell us what his standpoint is on nationalisation and socialisation. What is his standpoint on seizure of power by an AWB dictatorship in which Eugéne Terre’Blanche will have the sole power and right to make decisions in this country? That is what the hon member for Sasolburg told me yesterday or the day before. He is an expert on the AWB. If CP members do not agree with the AWB, they should tell South Africa what their standpoint is on these questions.

The old CP which broke away from the NP and became the new CP—in other words, the second-class AWBs because the AWB controls them now …

Have you ever seen a tarred and feathered ex-preacher? [Interjections.]

I want to thank the hon member Mr Theunissen for his friendliness.

I want to know what the hon member for Waterberg’s standpoint is as regards the AWB. I further wish to put the view that, if CP members think that they are still of any value in Brits for instance, they are asleep. Most CPs have crossed to the AWB. The CP chairman of their divisional council has resigned and joined the AWB. Two thirds of the CP people have left them and they are not even aware of it. That is the case throughout the country. [Interjections.]

I think hon members of this House should thank the hon the Minister of Agricultural Economics and the hon the Minister of Finance for what has been made available to the farmers of South Africa by means of this Budget.

I also wish to refer specifically to the fact that the hon the Minister of Finance has not increased excise duty on tobacco, wine or beer. Here we are dealing with three large agricultural industries. In a nutshell, the tobacco industry is experiencing difficulties, but I shall discuss those at a later occasion. The wine industry is faring well, however. Their harvests have not failed for years and they are contributing their share to the Exchequer as regards excise duty as well. They have a proud record and it is a fine industry. What we do not recognise sufficiently every day, however, is the enormous contribution to the Exchequer of R750 million, if one includes the GST, coming from the malt and beer industry which depends heavily on wheat, maize, hops, malt, etc. I wish to thank that industry in particular today for the infrastructures it has created and maintained in South Africa. It is one of the finest industries setting an example to many in investing in South Africa especially as far as manpower, training and sponsorships are concerned. This industry deserves the greatest gratitude and appreciation of the House.

Mr Chairman, from one ex-inhabitant of Rustenburg to another, I wish to say it was pleasant listening to the hon member for Brits.

Are you going to move on the same level as he did?

On the same subject, yes. [Interjections.] One point emerged very clearly from his speech. This was that he thoroughly filled the role of shadow Parliamentarian for the Waterberg constituency and in particular for the interests of the voters of that constituency. [Interjections.]

I should like to associate myself with the last part of the hon member for Brits’s speech. I want to take the line that we have heard frequently about the redistribution of income in this debate. I should like to request the hon the Minister of Finance to attend to the redistribution of excise duty. According to the Auditor-General’s latest report, that for the 1984-85 financial year, the State earned an income of R1,86 billion from excise duty. This excise duty was contributed as follows: Beer, R460 million; wine, R11,75 million; spirits, R262 million and mineral water R22,4 million.

From liquor alone, therefore, R756,75 million was contributed in the form of excise duty. It is interesting, however, that twice the amount was collected through tax on mineral water as from that on wine, which contributed R11 million.

Smokers contributed R426,2 million. Motorists and users of petroleum products contributed R514 million and ad valorem rights R194 million.

I wish to confine myself specifically to the contribution made by liquor in the form of excise duty to the Treasury as well as the discrepancy among the different products. Consequently I want us to examine a redistribution of tax in the form of excise.

Unfortified wine and sorghum beer do not contribute in the form of excise duty. Sparkling wine contributes 0,3% of the retail price because this percentage of the retail price represents excise duty. In the case of fortified wine, 4,8% of the price is excise duty and 22,1% in the case of spirits. It amounts to 20,3% in the case of beer.

We should examine the discrepancy further, however, because it can be said that a percentage ratio is meaningless. I wish to contend that alcohol should be the basis on which excise duty should be paid. If we take a drink containing 15 ml pure alcohol as an example, unfortified wine and sorghum beer contribute 0%; sparkling wine, 0,1%; fortified wine, 2%; spirits 13,6% and beer 14,3%.

It emerges from this that excise duty makes an appreciable contribution to the funds of the Exchequer but it should really be spread more equitably. Everyone consuming alcohol pays excise duty because it is the consumer who pays it. It is unfair to expect that someone who drinks only one type of drink should pay no tax whereas another is expected to pay 36c a litre in the form of excise duty.

I have already illustrated quite a few anomalies in the determination of excise duty tariffs. A further anomaly is that the excise burden is almost the same on beer and spirits but the alcohol content of beer is 9 times lower than that of spirits.

That is discrimination.

The hon member says it is discrimination and I agree. The organisation “The Brewers Association of Canada” conducted a study on the subject. This study involved 21 Eastern and Western European countries as well as the USA, Canada and Japan. They found that the assessment based on the alcohol content of spirits and beer should be the same in order to encourage a consumption of liquor with a low alcohol content. I think not one of us disagrees that the consumption of drinks with a low alcohol content should be encouraged rather than discouraged.

It appears clearly from this that there is discrimination against some tax payers in the form of excise duty. Some do not pay this duty or pay very little and the burden on the consumers of other liquor is much greater.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he would be prepared to support a motion that liquor companies’ advertising costs should not be permissible as a deduction for tax purposes?

I do not believe the two matters bear any relationship to each other. Advertising costs for liquor are a source of income to certain publications and the media and I do not think the two cases are in any way connected.

One of the reasons why excise duty is not levied on certain products I have mentioned is that it would encourage the consumption of the specific products if no tax were levied on them. Tax as such on a product, however, does not discourage its use because tax on wine does not discourage its consumption. It is unfair, however, that the consumer of a bottle of wine costing R14 on the Blue Train contributes nothing in the form of excise duty whereas the consumer of beer has to contribute 36c per litre in the form of this duty. I do not consider that fair. I wish to ask whether the hon the Minister would not see fit to refer this specific question of the more equitable spread of excise duty on types of liquor to the Margo Commission in order not only to accomplish a more equitable distribution of the burden on the one hand but also to bring about a broader basis on which excise duty may be levied on the other.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Hercules addressed a spirited subject in a very calm manner. He restored a little order to the House after some very spirited action between the CP and the NP.

I would like to use this opportunity to take up a matter largely of a regional nature. However, before doing so, because this is a budget debate, one gets the feeling that on an ever-increasing basis, when it comes to taxation in this country where the whole question revolves around how much people will be taxed and the manner in which they will be taxed, there is a great deal of participation, concern and interest by the man in the street. However, when it comes to how that money will be spent by the Government, he appears to be entirely remote from the system and entirely uninvolved and not participatory in a manner which I think is going to cost us dearly in the future. He should rather be asking how the Government is going to spend his taxes instead of which his ability to link the right of the Government to tax a nation with the policies of that party for whom he voted, becomes confused by emotional and tribal affiliations or pie in the sky solutions. That has led us in this country into a situation which perhaps one might encapsulate by saying that where the NP promised white bread in a White South Africa, we have now ended up by being bled white in a Black South Africa! I think that the free enterprise system is in mortal danger.

I believe the Government must look at the whole question of the ability on the part of everybody in the country—and I mean our total composition—to have some understanding of budgeting. This is incredibly important. I think that the Government must look at a new process. The Westminister system has been ushered out and this new system ushered in. Even this new system, however, is going to be changed; that is one thing about our country that is a certainty. Yet we still adhere to the Westminister style of budgeting, and the actual Budget is veiled in secrecy until the last moment. When one contemplates the possibility of a hostile majority governing us, one realises that the one thing that is certain is that they will use the tax mechanism to right the wrongs of the past. That will of course be done at tremendous cost to the country because it will simply be a case of killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and any hopes and aspirations that they may have had will go out of the window.

I believe it is very important, therefore, that we use imagination and innovation to introduce a new system or process of budgeting whereby the standing committee could deliberate well before the time upon the proposals envisaged. Perhaps we could even involve the television media. I think the television media can be used to great advantage. There could, for instance, be panel discussions. Perhaps we could even introduce a separate channel for civic affairs in this country. That would be a significant innovation. Matters of national concern could, for instance, be debated on an ongoing basis and the public could then watch these debates on television. I, for one, would rather watch Oliver Tambo and other Marxists participating in a panel discussion on TV than have him sitting in Lusaka.

Or having to listen to Chris Heunis all the time.

That is a point too. [Interjections.]

The point I am trying to make is that it is terribly important that, in this process of reform, we devise some kind of educational process in regard to budgeting because the demands for a bigger slice of the cake are so easy to make without the implications being understood. So the more we involve people in these processes the better it is going to be for us in the future when we engage in the process of a redistribution of wealth and the just—I know that this is a word that is not liked—distribution of taxes in a meaningful way.

Still in regard to budgeting, I think people often overlook the fact that tax is power. When people talk about political systems they often avoid entirely the question of taxation. They talk about all sorts of constitutional models and about minority rights and that sort of thing. When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, however, the Government has the power to tax people and then spend that money. We simply have to get through to the people who are going to participate in the governments of the future.

Honestly, Sir, I do not think that the NP has yet realised that it is not going to be the Government of South Africa in the future. Neither are the Whites going to govern South Africa. We are merely going to be part of the Government of South Africa. The more knowledge that the people who are going to govern this country with us have of these systems and processes the better it is going to be for everybody concerned.

I am glad that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is present, for I should like to take up a regional matter with him. It concerns our area, the area in the so-called Border Corridor”. I think it is terribly important that this matter should be handled with tremendous sensitivity and appreciation for the uncertainty and instability that preceded the consolidation phase. This uncertainty and instability was one of the factors that hindered investment in the area. It was also one of the factors that created a great feeling of insecurity about the future of the area. I believe, therefore, that any attempt to sort out the existing problems in that area on a legislative basis is going to be a waste of time. It is simply going to recreate that instability. I am referring to the incomplete consolidation and to the sounds in the wind about certain plans, about the black spots there and what is to be done about them.

Excuse me, but are you talking about the eight areas there?

Yes, I am talking about all the black spots within the Border corridor.

Recently I asked questions about whether those areas were now being administered by the RSA as a result of the Ngwali court case. What the Government in fact tried to do in the first place was to circumvent that court ruling by introducing legislation which granted them the power to negotiate agreements whereby the governments of the national states would administer those areas. I think that was an extremely dangerous thing to do because, from all indications, those people were very unhappy because of the citizenship question. To try then to circumvent this issue by passing legislation that would empower the Government to negotiate with the independent states to administer the area would simply rekindle the feeling that the wishes and desires of the people themselves were simply being overlooked or pushed aside.

During the five years of Ciskei’s independence the South African Government thought that the people of those areas were going to be moved. This Ciskeian government thought so as well. The net result was that nothing was done to those areas at all— there was no development, no infrastructural planning was done in that respect nothing whatsoever was done. The answers to my questions indicate that the Government has no knowledge of the number of farmers in those areas or of the area that is being farmed. It is a complete vacuum; and to try, in that situation, to get the area transferred back under the jurisdiction or administration of Ciskei is only going to aggravate the situation. What is required in this situation is the acceptance by the Government of its responsibilities in respect of those areas and an immediate plan to improve the circumstances there and stabilise the areas. It is of critical importance that those areas be stabilised. Three of the more southern areas, namely Newlands, Mooiplaas and Kweleqa, are largely dormitory towns to East London. Subsistence farming there is being squeezed out by the sheer pressure of humanity.

The whole question of the consolidation of land usage is something which we in this party believe should be approached on an entirely different basis. What is needed is constitutional rearrangement and not legislation. If, as a result of a structured confederal agreement a quid pro quo for land usage in that area could be brought about whereby Blacks could farm anywhere within that region, the problem could be solved. I can assure hon members that a Black fellow-farmer who has the capital to go and purchase ground and farm it would be welcome there. The quid pro quo could represent the introduction of land reform measures on a confederal basis. I repeat, we should not look to legislative processes to sort that area out. I believe it is the constitutional, confederal approach that would exercise a stabilising influence. It could well be the initiative that could bring about a situation similar to the regional situation in Natal. As I have said, I am glad the hon the Minister is present here. Unfortunately, however, my time has expired.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for King William’s Town said he wished to deal with a regional matter and so he probably does not expect me to react to his speech. I propose, however, to pursue a similar regional topic although I certainly think that the subject matter of what I have to say has far wider national implications.

Last week I was one of several hundred Natalians who attended the opening ceremony of the so-called kwaZulu-Natal Indaba in the Durban City Hall. Some 33 organisations were officially represented there, including most of the political parties represented in Parliament, local government bodies, and also organisations representative of Natal commerce, industry, agriculture and the trade unions. Sitting there among my fellow-Natalians I believe I shared with most of them the sincere wish that some good would be born from this conference. South Africa accommodates a multi-faceted society and it is only to be expected that an initiative like this will be approached with widely divergent expectations and perspectives.

The NP made no secret of its misgivings about the proposed format of the indaba. Our views on the need for group rights to be protected and violence as an instrument of reform to be rejected unequivocally are well known. Our leader referred to these matters when he replied to the invitation.

Furthermore, the declared aim of the indaba is to explore the need for “a single legislative authority for the Natal-kwaZulu region.” Whether group rights can be effectively protected in a single legislative body is to our mind a moot point.

However, having stated our reservations, we must expect that other participants will have theirs, depending on their perspectives. That certainly does not mean that the indaba should not be given a chance. If we want to find solutions to our many problems of coexistence in this country, this can only come about by talking to one another. Any initiative that succeeds in opening up forums for dialogue must therefore be welcomed, and it would be churlish of us not to congratulate the organising bodies, kwaZulu and the NRP, on their success in getting the talks under way.

In doing so they have demonstrated what Government spokesmen have said time and time again—that there are many thousands of South Africans and hundreds of South African organisations that are committed to the concept of peaceful reform and that reject violence and the “all or nothing” doctrine of the militants on the left or right. In fact, without wishing to detract from the indaba initiative, it can be said that negotiations between responsible White and Black authorities have been the rule rather than the exception ever since this Government first came into power.

If the Official Opposition and its Press had not been so anxious to brand the TBVC countries, the self-governing national states, and indeed this tricameral Parliament, as apartheid creations, they would have realised that years of painstaking negotiations preceded these momentous developments—developments which no participating Black leader wants to undo today.

Now, after years of totally fruitless obstructionism and the utter rejection of parliamentary sponsored negotiation, the PFP is casting about for an alternative role to remain relevant in South African politics. Their two most senior parliamentarians have already opted out of parliamentary politics, one apparently in order to be free enough to revisit his “pals” in Lusaka; the other to become active in the UDF. Now, to them, the Natal Indaba comes as a gift from above.

The way the PFP tries to muscle in on the indaba is just too funny to be believed. For all the world it would seem that they and not the NRP were the big creative geniuses behind the indaba.

When the NP announced that it would send observers, Chief Minister Buthelezi welcomed the decision saying that it did not matter in what capacity the NP was present as long as it was there. NRP spokesmen welcomed the NP decision albeit with reservations. Professor Lawrence Schlemmer, one of the prime movers, referred to the NP’s “high-powered delegation.” Both The Natal Mercury and The Daily News approved editorially. Only the PFP struck a sour note. “A pale shadow of active participation” and “a lukewarm variation of an active delegation” was how the hon member for Berea described it. The hon member for Pinetown had the gall to patronise us and to tell us that we “would be admitted.” May I tell him that he and his party are political “Johnny-come-lately’s” in Natal politics. [Interjections.] When his MPC managed to become the first Prog to scrape into the Provincial Council of Natal we had been in the Natal Provincial Council for generations. Is it any wonder then that the NRP had to advertise in the Natal Press last week that they, and not the PFP were the initiators of the indaba? Under their own emblem they say: “Who negotiated these proposals with kwaZulu? The New Republic Party. Who initiated with kwaZulu the Natal Indaba? The New Republic Party.”

The one contribution that the PFP was uniquely positioned to render in this exercise it abjectly failed to make. Surely, if Messrs Van Zyl Slabbert and Alex Boraine still command any influence in the PFP nobody would be better placed to persuade the UDF and their fellow-travellers to participate. After all, the PFP has for years been actively propagating the concept of a national convention as the panacea for all South Africa’s problems provided that all interested organisations participate.

Why did you not persuade the CP to come?

A national convention is not our policy; it is that of the PFP.

With Dr Van Zyl Slabbert obviously persona grata with the ANC and Dr Boraine a candidate for a high position in the UDF, here was a heaven-sent opportunity to bring both organisations to what could be called a mini-convention. Moreover, the UDF owes a debt of gratitude to both Inkatha and the PFP because they withdrew from the Convention Alliance to make participation easier for the UDF.

But no, not only have the Progs failed to persuade these organisations to send delegations but they have yet to tell the country that they even attempted to do so. Worst of all, such is their selective censure that they see fit to harshly attack a party with observer status at the indaba but do not have the nerve to whisper a word of criticism of the UDF and other leftist militants.

This is not the time to comment on the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba’s agenda or to speculate on the effect these discussions may have on the future course of events in South Africa as a whole, but one lesson has already been learnt from the run-up to the indaba. Any South African who still thinks that there is hope for peaceful constitutional development in PFP formulae is living in cloud cuckooland. Over the years they have persistently refused to come up with a clear-cut constitutional programme, hiding behind their cherished national convention. [Interjections.]

In the mere six months since last September their so-called national convention has been exposed as a fraud and a sham. For years the Official Opposition has been playing footsy-footsy with all the most rapidly leftist elements inside and outside South Africa.

Give one example to illustrate your generalisation!

They have gone on their knees before the Marxists in the ANC by sending one crusade after the other to Lusaka. Their own efforts to form a grand alliance of pro-convention organisations has proved an embarrassing failure. Not even their own withdrawal from their creation could give the so-called Convention Alliance any credibility among the leftist militants they would so dearly love to please.

And now, finally, the indaba has proved conclusively that the PFP has neither the muscle nor the will to draw these militants to the conference table, not even in a relatively harmless regional context.

South Africans who have seen the PFP throw all restraint to the wind in order to win the favour of the ANC and its allies, while at the same time pouring scorn on any fears expressed by White, Coloured, Indian or even Black minority groups, will continue to say “no thank you” to the broth the PFP is preparing for them.

Mr Chairman, I should like to congratulate my colleague and bench-mate for so clearly having exposed the “cuckoo’s” politicking for us.

Like so many other people in this country, I am concerned about my country and its people. I would not say my country is going up in flames, because that would be untrue. I do, however, know that my country’s life is in danger, because it is giving birth to a new dispensation. It is such a hazardous birth that it could put the mother’s life in jeopardy. Yet is must happen. There is no turning back, nor any time for recriminations about what should or should not have been. There is only one hope for a mother and her child and that is for the birth to take place as quickly as possible. The mother must recover and we must all join in bringing up that child.

We must stop these recriminations between political parties and between one White person and another, one Black person and another and between Whites and Blacks. We must jointly focus our attention on the greater political solutions that need to be found. Whether we like it or not, the hard facts are that the NP is the only means, available to us in South Africa, which can be employed to furnish the necessary political solutions. [Interjections.] With all due respect to the other parties, none of them can take over the main role from the NP and carry through the negotiations in its stead.

There is no reason, however, why the other parties should make it more difficult or impossible for the State President and the Government to play this role. I do not expect them to join the NP, but when our State President has to negotiate for our lives and for our future, we—and indeed South Africa as a whole—really can expect to have their support. The CP and the PFP can convey the message to others—to the whole world too—that the State President has the full support of White South Africa.

Is it necessary, in these critical times in which the State President must talk, on behalf of all Whites, to Black leaders and to the world and has to negotiate with them, for the CP to go behind his back and slander and disparage him, launch personal attacks against him, cast suspicion on his motives and detract from his negotiating powers, thereby delivering him and South Africa into the hands of our enemies? [Interjections.] That is what the hon the leader of the CP spoke about a moment ago; that is what he should put in his own pipe and so he can smoke it. [Interjections.]

How low can people sink for a few votes or seats which, in any event, make not one iota’s difference to South Africa’s future? [Interjections.] When one is involved in a life-and-death struggle, surely one does not sit behind a bush slandering one’s leader the way the CP does. Is that not contemptible?

The PFP plays a different tune, but they sing the same song whittling away at the survival of the Whites. The Defence Force has to be discredited and destroyed. Suspicion must be cast on the Police and they must be presented as the brutish enemies of the Black people. Sworn statements against the Police are taken left, right and centre from little children—all of this in the name of justice and humanity! Has one tear yet been shed, however, or one sworn statement taken down in connection with deaths caused by a “necklace”—a burning tyre placed round the person’s neck?

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is not here, but has that arrogant and pompous gentleman, with his misplaced self-glorification, ever concerned himself about the cruel and agonising death of a necklace victim? [Interjections.] Has he ever taken affidavits to establish the identity of the murderers? No, he has never done so, because it would be completely out of character for him.

The PFP is engaged in the biggest political sell-out that has ever been perpetrated against any country in the history of the world. [Interjections.]

*By comparison they make the famed Trojan Horse look like a miniature Shetland pony.

That is the left wing and right wing of White politics. In Black politics we also have the left-wing radical element in the form of the ANC and its affiliates that are equally eager to sell South Africa down the river to foreign Marxist domination and suppression. The White and Black left-wing elements walk the same path. The White right-wing elements walk a different path, but they are going to reach the same destination—the destruction of South Africa and all civilised norms.

If they were to have their way, for South Africa it would be like the dark ages of Europe.

Fortunately there is a broad mid-stream element amongst both Whites and Blacks who rather want to live together than die together in South Africa. For all of us in this House and in this country who keep their heads, the challenge lies in the fact that we should make it possible for people from both sides sensibly and humanely to stand together. We must elevate love for our fellow men above everyday acts of violence and murder. The big question, however, is how we are going to manage to do that. How does one fight acts of violence without using violence? Is it possible? Can it be done? And if so, how much violence must we use to ensure a peaceful future in South Africa?

Amongst the Whites there is a broad stream that is willing and eager to continue with reform—people who want to talk, negotiate, take the Black man by the hand and join him in working out a fair and just future without any discrimination. These people want to move ahead, and they are treading on the Government’s heels like an eager team of oxen on the heels of the team leader. The question is how quickly the Government can lead them without overturning the wagon. On the other hand, for how long can the Government slow down the front end of the team before those in the rear start breaking the yoke? On the Black side there is an equally large stream of goodwill, but they are without a leader and are afraid. They fix their hope on the Government to protect them against violence, but at the same time to give them complete freedom and equal treatment.

We must bring these White and Black streams together as quickly as possible, because both are growing restless as a result of the tangible problems under the circumstances that prevail. The fact of the matter is that one funeral leads to another. A greater show of force by the ANC and greater efforts at flaunting State authority, brutal intimidation, murder and the burning of houses, possessions and schools are an everyday occurrence. This is not only seen to be happening, but the effects are also being felt by Black people who are labelled moderates or “sellouts”. There is a visible reign of terror being conducted by children who are in a position to point a finger at any Black man or woman, and that is the end of him or her. It is children who are presenting demands to the Government, who are requesting more and better schools and books and who then burn and destroy them as quickly as they get them. There are boycotts being introduced as a result of coercion by children, boycotts which are then lifted so that they can catch their breath and make further demands before instituting the boycotts again. The poor Black people must simply fall in with that and put up with it. These children will supposedly decide for themselves when and where they want to attend school so that they can be given lessons in Marxist indoctrination and mobilised for further acts of terror. A generation of Black children are being brought up filled with hate—hate for State authority, the police and the Whites. They consider the murdering of innocent people to be a joke, like hunting rabbits in the old days. After having flung stones at a car until there was virtually nothing left of it, some of them would laughingly set the occupants of the car alight or stone them to death and regard this as sport. Those children are the ANC’s front-line troops—these little children who may not be shot but who are nevertheless regarded by the ANC as being “expendable”.

How must the moderate Black people interpret or deal with the situation? What are their options? They regard the State as being unable to handle the radical elements and accept that these elements are in the process of triumphing over State authority and order. They regard it as being safer to go with the stream, to submit to the terrorism, thereby staying alive, rather than to oppose it, because they cannot be sure that the State will always be in a position to protect their possessions and to protect them.

The ANC seeks confrontation by way of provocation and by presenting more and greater demands to the Government. That pursuit of confrontation is not going to decrease; it is going to increase. They know that through intimidation they are increasing their numbers daily and that they are obtaining more overseas support with every funeral and every confrontation spearheaded by the children. That is the situation and those are the facts discernible to the moderate, middle-of-the-road, well-disposed, Whites and Blacks in the Eastern Cape.

It makes them uneasy. Their enthusiasm for co-operation is dissipating. They are beginning to doubt whether the Government still can or wants to exercise any control throughout the Black areas. Those Whites who have suffered partial or total losses as a result of boycotts are building up a radical backlash against both the Blacks and the Government, which is directly and indirectly being held responsible for the lack of action.

The same goes for the stone-throwing on public roads. The public feels unsafe and again this is leading to increased resistance against the Government. Again this is seen as a victory for Black lawlessness owing to the Government’s inability to maintain law and order. A stone thrown at a fast-moving car is as lethal as those poisoned darts which, in the old days, Bushmen shot from behind bushes at passing riders on horseback.

What solutions do the moderates in the Eastern Cape put forward? There are those of them who say that if a child is old enough to throw a stone, he is old enough to be shot. Others think that there should be concerted expeditions into the White neighbourhoods to clean out all the intimidators. Thus the moderate Blacks will be freed of the bonds of terrorism so that we can speak to them and they can speak to us. Others again are of the opinion that if they want to boycott, they must be helped along. Help them and ensure that no food, petrol or goods enter the Black residential areas. The boycotts should be imposed on both sides, and then let the Black people sort each other out in their own areas without interference from outside. Subsequently we can talk to those who are left. Others say that anyone throwing stones, petrol bombs, hand grenades or whatever at members of the Defence Force, the Police or the public should summarily be shot. That is all that will help to put a stop to this stone-throwing.

The Government must take all these reactions I have mentioned here into account. Which is correct? Which is wrong? What means must we employ in an effort to find solutions? What must be done before the moderates—the White and Black moderates—drift too far apart? Clear the table; wipe it all off.

Why are your hands in your pockets?

Because I have something to hold in my hands, which is more than you can say. I have what you do not have, my friend. [Interjections.] We can say: “Clear the table. Sweep everything off the table! Now we can talk. You are invited to take a seat at this table that has been cleared. You are invited to help lay this table which has been cleared, as long as we guarantee one another’s freedom, one another’s safety and one another’s rights.”

Can that be done? I hope so. The burden of saving South Africa does not only rest with the White man. The Black leaders will also have to do their share. They will also have to stand up fearlessly and be counted or forever hold their peace. Unfortunately there is still always the bottom line. The bottom line is that we cannot negotiate or achieve anything until law and order has been completely restored in this country.

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon member for Queenstown sincerely on his good speech which was significant and to the point. In the course of my own speech I shall, in fact, be elaborating on certain arguments he raised here.

There are quite a few aspects of present-day South African political life about which I am deeply perturbed. One of these is the degree of thoughtless recklessness with which some people practise politics. For example, take the PFP’s attitude towards this Parliament in which we are debating today. The present hon Leader of the Official Opposition calls it as a farce. He wants the Government to say it is going to abolish it even before the next general election takes place. The Official Opposition’s previous leader called it “a useless constitutional set-up”. What happened here during the first week of the session he called “’n groteske ritueel in irrelevantheid”.

This afternoon, whilst the hon member for De Kuilen had the floor, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, also referring to Parliament, said—if I understood him correctly—“It is a mess.” That is the attitude of a party which cannot muster the support of its electorate and which, in its hopeless frustration, does not know whether it belongs here.

The hon member for De Kuilen indicated here this afternoon that the hon member for Houghton thought they had been brought here by Dr Van Zyl Slabbert.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Can you see the hon member for Stellenbosch whilst the hon member for Vasco is sitting here? [Interjections.]

Order! I do not understand the question. I suspect the hon member for Vasco is not sitting where he sat earlier. The hon member for Stellenbosch may continue.

The hon member for De Kuilen indicated that the hon member for Houghton thought they were here because their leader, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, had brought them here, whilst Dr Slabbert was of the opinion that they had specifically convinced him to come here. So we do not know whether hon members of the Official Opposition are here because their leader persuaded them to come along or vice versa. What I do know, however, is that it is a dangerous game in a delicate period of constitutional transition, such as we have at present, to discredit or cast suspicion on the instrument of reform to the extent that some of them are doing so. Under the leadership of Dr Van Zyl Slabbert who was, in point of fact, nothing but an academic dreamer, a degree of unreality, which still persists today, but which is unproductive and even harmful, came to the fore in our politics. Let me just give one example. The idea gradually took hold, particularly in the ranks of the PFP, that if a party lands up in opposition because the electorate has rejected its policy at the polls, the Government can nevertheless be pressured into implementing those rejected policies. Such naïvety leads to frustration; it confuses members of the general public because it creates expectations that simply cannot be met. It frustrated Dr Slabbert himself to such an extent that he decided to leave.

In the journal Leadership, volume V, No 1 of 1986, he says that at the end of 1985 he took a vacation with a view to redefining his strategy. He said:

Sir, he would have done better to have enjoyed his vacation, without tiring himself with the drawing up of that document, because if he were a realist, he would surely have known that the State President could not and would not implement the PFP’s policy, which has been rejected by the electorate.

I think the time has now come for the PFP, in its own interests, but also in the interests of realism in our politics, to jettison this kind of naivety. In this regard I am also referring to the idea of a so-called “non-racial democratic alternative” in our society, which is as multiracial as can be. Even the hon member for Houghton can perceive that ours is a multiracial society. She says:

She therefore perceives that ours is a multiracial society which has built-in tensions. Yet they dream of a non-racial set-up. Under the leadership of Dr Slabbert the PFP conducted politics in this country as if it were an academic seminar they were participating in. The time has come for them to come back to earth.

Their approach to the ANC also attests to the utmost in naivety. Again I just want to mention a few examples. We are constantly being told that the ANC was an innocent political movement that wanted to participate in the dispensation on a peaceful basis. It is said that the Government drove them to desperation and violence. Was that so, however? Surely the ANC was one of the architects of the freedom charter. On 26 September 1984 Raymond Suttner gave a lecture at the University of Cape Town on that freedom charter. That speech, with footnotes, was published in South Africa International of April 1985. One of those footnotes read as follows:

That really does not look like a very subdued approach based on co-operation! Remember, Sir, that Suttner is a supporter, actually a devotee of that charter. He knows what he is talking about, because he is one of the people who helped draw it up.

Compare this Charterist approach to the following utterance by Dr Slabbert himself:

Yet the PFP wants to negotiate with the ANC.

Whilst still the Leader of the Official Opposition, in an interview in Leadership Dr Slabbert dealt with the ties between the communists and the ANC. He came to the conclusion that there were indeed communists in the ANC, but that they did not dominate. He does not explain how this could be possible, 19 of the 30 executive committee members of the ANC also being members of the South African Communist Party. Then on the basis of his observations during the discussions he conducted with them, he goes on to say the following:

He apparently believes that, but let us see whether that is possible. I should like to quote from an article entitled: Marxism-Leninism and its Implications for South Africa. The writer of the article is one of Dr Van Zyl Slabbert’s friends and spiritual allies, Dr J J Degenaar. He describes politics as:

That is a wonderful description of how politics should be conducted, but he goes on to say:

Degenaar then quotes Lenin himself who said:

What is being said here is that anyone who takes a communist at his word is a fool. The communists dominate in the running of the ANC and I think that in the light of what I have just said, in this post-Van Zyl Slabbert era the PFP ought to reconsider its attitude towards that dangerous organisation.

It is a fact that South Africa and all its people are threatened by a dangerous ideology which is being conveyed by people who do not acknowledge or have any knowledge of morality. Any political flirtation with such people is dangerous. We in this Parliament, who still believe in evolutionary, democratic political change, must stand together; we must reach out to one another before it is too late. Let us acknowledge, once and for all, that no party in this House has an overall solution to the question of relationships in our country.

That is why the NP, not wanting or able to sidestep the realities in this country, want to negotiate a future dispensation. I also believe that the policy of separation of the CP and the HNP contains an element of the solution. Separation, however, does not offer the whole solution. In certain respects the PFP also sees the light. For example, the PFP accepts the plurality of our society and acknowledges the necessity of protecting minorities. The NRP’s indisputable South Africanism alone is a valuable asset in an institution such as this.

So can we not come together in Parliament and, on a realistic basis and in the interests of South Africa, try to identify as many points of contact as possible and then to co-operate on that basis? Would that not be more meaningful than to strive for a national convention with people who differ more with us and amongst themselves than we here differ amongst ourselves. I believe this is the right place to begin, particularly if the ideal we have set ourselves is that of promoting the credibility of Parliament as an institution.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Stellenbosch will excuse me if I do not reply to him directly because I intend to deal with a different subject.

The hon the Minister of Finance visited Port Elizabeth to open an agricultural show. In his personal capacity he was a charming and agreeable guest. He milked a Friesland cow at the show. [Interjections.] We heard that the cow had actually already been milked dry; it kicked the bucket over and kicked him on the shins, and provided an interesting example to the taxpayer of South Africa in direct response. [Interjections.]

But the hon the Minister did not, however, visit Port Elizabeth in his personal capacity; he visited it as Minister of Finance. A large number of us went to listen to him talk in the hope that he would bring a message of significance to that depressed area, because it is really very seriously in trouble. From that point of view the hon the Minister’s visit was a total disaster. This is what he told the community. He said the Government was committed to the development of Port Elizabeth, and that the matter was receiving top priority. He also said the Government realised the suffering that had been caused by unemployment and the effect this had on the unrest situation. According to him the Government appreciated the need for a revival programme to avoid a mass exodus of people from that area. He referred to Port Elizabeth’s involvement in the Mossel Bay off-shore project but made no specific commitments. He added that the best kind of help was self-help and quoted the 1820 Settlers as an example. He said the Government should be the signalman …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: While an hon member of my party is addressing the House, why should hon Ministers and hon members on the Government side simply continue to conduct private conversations among themselves?

Order! The hon member for Walmer may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Finance said the Government should be the signalman who points the way. He congratulated the agricultural society on its survival in difficult times, and might just as well have added: “And the best of Irish luck to the Eastern Cape”.

Mr Chairman, the Port Elizabeth/Uiten-hage region has been sacrificed again and again on the ideological altar of apartheid. In the 1960s it was declared a Coloured labour preference area. The result of that was that new motor industries established themselves in regions where Black labour was cheaper and more plentiful. Subsequently the component manufacturers followed that industry and tended to establish themselves in the PWV area, with the result that Port Elizabeth was seriously deprived.

When one considers the fervour with which this Government promotes decentralisation it is quite extraordinary that it did not utilise that opportunity of creating in the Eastern Cape a manufacturing network of supportive ancillary industries. That, after all, would have been the logical thing to do, bearing in mind the philosophy of this Government. However, it never did so.

Again, in 1982, State planners prejudiced Port Elizabeth in the interests of an apartheid blueprint. When the incentives for an industrial decentralisation scheme were announced in 1982 Port Elizabeth was totally ignored.

Of course that is not true at all!

It is true. It is quite true. [Interjections.]

He said “initially”!

I said “initially”. [Interjections.] Port Elizabeth’s claims to be placed on a competitive basis with other similar industrial areas were initially ignored. No matter what one thinks of the strategy of industrial decentralisation— everybody knows I believe the Government’s policy in this regard is a fiasco—one thing that is important about such a scheme is that it changes the comparative advantages of areas, and every area must then, if such a scheme is introduced, demand that its comparative advantage be not damaged.

In the following example which will illustrate this—and I hope the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will pay attention to this and consider it—the figures I have chosen concern a textile factory. A small textile factory intending to relocate from the PWV area to a coastal region moves to Port Elizabeth, East London or Bisho. These are the three areas I have taken for the purposes of my comparison. The structure of this company includes fixed assets of R3,5 million, and current assets of R3 million. Its average number of employees is approximately 300, and it has a turnover of R9 million a year. It is a small company. The total value of concessions over ten years, if it moves to one of these three places, is respectively as follows. If it moves to Port Elizabeth it gets R4,5 million in a series of tax concessions from the Government over that period. If it moves to East London that same plant will get R13,34 million, and if it moves to Bisho it will get nearly R14 million. The concessions I am talking about are the relocation allowance, housing concessions, transport concessions, a tax-free wage concession—which I have doubled so that one can look at all these figures as taxed figures—and also an interest concession. I have excluded tender preferences, which are very considerable. In the case of Bisho it is 10%. Then there are also training subsidies and power subsidies which I have excluded as they apply to all three areas.

I have not been able to get the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning or the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry to understand—although I have tried repeatedly to do so—that a factory cannot possible move to Port Elizabeth, and neither would either one of those two hon Ministers if they were actually proprietors or directors of such a company, in the face of that overwhelming concession differential. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning simply does not understand this. I do not actually know how to make it clearer. I would ask him to go over these figures and to analyse them in whichever way he likes. There is simply no way in which a prospective entrepreneur can overcome that financial difference. When one divides that amount of money by the number of job opportunities created—the amount of money in the form of concessions over ten year—the cost per job is immense. The hon the Minister of Finance must seriously consider whether this country can afford this type of expenditure. I do not believe it can. [Interjections.]

If it is not sanctimonious hypocrisy to advise a business community facing this type of handicap that self-help is the best kind of help, it is a childlike ignorance of the realities of commercial life and reflects the type of Cabinet decision which has placed this country in the appalling mess in which it finds itself at the moment. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the exodus which the hon the Minister feared might take place from Port Elizabeth has already started. [Interjections.] One thousand fewer White pupils than in 1985 enrolled at primary schools in Port Elizabeth at the beginning of this year. The exodus has really begun and there are hundreds of properties for sale. A consultant in the Small Business Unit at UPE recently estimated that there were 150 000 unemployed in the region. As hon members know, Vista University estimated that in the Black townships of Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage unemployment was something of the order of 55% or 60%. Liquidations are up 100% and insolvencies had increased by 70% during the first three months of this year compared with the same period during 1985.

There is a school of thought which says this sort of matter should not be discussed in public. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is on record as saying that this upsets confidence in the ranks of the business community. [Interjections.]

You are talking absolute nonsense! [Interjections.]

I shall check on what the hon the Minister really said.

You do not know what the truth is! [Interjections.]

I believe, Mr Chairman, that would suit the Government extremely well. These things should come out in the open. I know of no decisions or situations that are best hidden, particularly in the sphere of economics. Why has the Government acted in this way in Port Elizabeth? Its blueprint for South Africa ordains that industrialisation should not take place in Port Elizabeth; it should take place in or near the Black homelands. The Government is prepared to spend enormous amounts of money to accomplish this though it has never ever carried out a study to find out what the direct costs are, let alone the indirect costs.

Mr Chairman, if you want a glimpse into South Africa’s medium-term future under the Nationalist Government, do not read the political soothsayers; just come and have a look at Port Elizabeth. Then imagine this area if General Motors should pull out. It must be accepted that an organisation such as that—a multinational organisation—has obligations to a far wider constituency than just South Africa, and cannot be seen indefinitely to play along with this Government’s repugnant political experiments.

I have spoken to Cabinet Ministers on this subject, and their attitude is one of “do not expect me to run my department on the basis of what suits individual companies”. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the chain reaction that would take place if General Motors were to have to pull out of Port Elizabeth. The whole spectrum of industry, commerce, finance and service organisations would be adversely affected, with inevitable consequences to the problems experienced by the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Walmer raised a number of matters which are of importance to his particular region, but I want to deal with another issue and will direct some remarks in the course of my speech directly to the PFP.

*One might as well argue with a ghost as with members of the CP. They discuss a policy which is not feasible, and if one’s policy is not feasible one has no policy. On 20 February 1986 the hon leader of the CP said he had appointed a group of experts to see where the various groups’ residential areas are situated in South Africa. When this report is made know, he will negotiate with Blacks about the final borders of these areas. This will take place in a real master-servant manner.

On 11 March the hon member for Soutpansberg said a large concentration of Blacks lived outside the national states, but when he had the opportunity to address the problem, he said they did not elaborate on it. The hon member is dreaming. I hope he wakes up and it does not come a nightmare for him.

On 13 September the leader—I beg your pardon, the unofficial leader—Dr C P Mulder said during a debate on urbanisation strategy in the President’s Council, “… jy reel vervoer, verkeer tussen mense met visumbeheer, met paspoortbeheer, met ’n nor-male internasionale stelsel”. This man is knows for his lack of concern for detail. This is the man who gave permanent rights to Blacks in White South Africa. He gave the right of 99-year leasehold; he wanted to make Soweto the most beautiful city in Africa; he gave autonomy to local authorities and worked out five-year plans for them. [Interjections.] I now ask the hon members of the CP whether they are going to let the Blacks retain those rights or are going to deprive them of them.

We want to get rid of you first.

I want to put on record that I put the question clearly and audibly and that the CP is evading my question and not replying to it.

This is a part of history that the hon member for Sasolburg denies and which does not exist for him. This part of the National Party’s history does not exist for him. Is he going to allow Blacks to retain those rights or is he going to deprive them of them? [Interjections.] I am talking about the 99-year leasehold which was introduced by Dr Connie Mulder.

We are not in favour of that.

The hon member is opposed to it. Very clearly this is a further prominent difference between the CP and the HNP. I deduce that the CP wants to retain it since they are keeping quiet about it, and the hon member for Sasolburg wants to reject it. [Interjections.].

Why do the CP members keep quiet about their true policy as stated in Die Patriot? Why do they not state their policy here and in the country’s other council-chambers? In Die Patriot they say they are going to deprive Blacks of all rights which give them permanent residence in the country. When I asked them the question a moment ago, they kept quiet. They continue to say that they are going to deprive the Blacks of certain subsidies.

The CP is a party which refuses to face facts. They say we must give them other facts. At the CP’s Transvaal congress the hon member for Waterberg, their leader, said the PWV area is part of the White heartland and they do not intend sacrificing that area. As if anyone on this side of the House wants to sacrifice it! [Interjections.]

I now want to tell them that Blacks in South Africa are here to stay with full human rights despite Dr Verwoerd’s statement that they would return from the White areas by 1978. [Interjections.] In 1980, 53% of the total population of 24,8 million in South Africa was urbanised. [Interjections.] The hon members can shout as much as they like, but I shall make my speech and they are going to listen to me. [Interjections.] they compliment me when they make interjections, because then I know they are listening.

This PWV area to which they referred, produces 45% of South Africa’s total industrial production. This takes place on 1% of South Africa’s surface area. Forty-two per cent of the total White population of South Africa live in this area. Forty-six per cent of the total Black urban population is housed in White areas. This is the area which is experiencing the fastest population growth and which will have to absorb the greatest number of “new” Black city dwellers in future.

Let us look at the NP’s true history. In 1947 the Sauer Report stipulated in paragraphs 32 and 33 that Natives in urban areas are temporary and are visitors. That was written in 1947.

Anyone who says in 1986 that those people are “visitors” and “temporary” is blind and deaf to reason. That kind of a person occupies himself with escaping from reality. Even the hon member for Soutpansberg does not want to face the problem, evading it instead by saying they do not speak about it.

What do you want in Soutpansberg?

I am going to help the NP to oust the hon member for Soutpansberg. [Interjections.]

In 1911, Genl Hertzog said the following:

As early as 1941 the historian De Kiewiet reported that it had remained no more than an idea.

We now come to the central question. Are the CP forcibly, with sjamboks and guns going to remove the people who are living where they do not want them? Is the answer “yes” or “no”?

What is your answer? [Interjections.]

I shall tell the CP. Just as the CP is performing an egg-dance now, they perform egg-dances when I am not present. The hon member for Waterberg said last year that the displacement of people was one of the questions for which a political formula still had to be found. The CP, speaking through the hon member for Waterberg, does not have an answer to the most cardinal question in South Africa. I put it to those hon members that the CP supporters are demanding forced removals with sjamboks and guns, and that is why they are performing this egg-dance. What they preach in their policy is not in harmony with what their supporters demand.

Through the State President and the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, the NP has taken the following stand on removals: There must be orderly urbanisation; the co-operation of the communities involved must be obtained for the removal; and if people are moved, their quality of life should be increased.

This is a contentious political issue in Krugersdorp. It is White politics and Black politics since one can no longer see the one in isolation from the other. I am not over-sensitive towards anyone who criticises me, because I realise a lot is at stake. I ask only for foreign political nosey parkers and national political squatters to refrain from becoming involved. We give one another a hard time, but in our own way we love one another. I am pleased to have members of the AWB, the UDF and all possible political shades in between, as my friends.

After 30 years we have come to the conclusion that it is not politically and financially feasible to relocate the inhabitants of Munsieville. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the voice of the hon member for Soutspansberg is being heard too often. The hon member for Krugersdorp may proceed.

Once again I admit in public that the Government and I amended our well-known standpoint on the removal of Munsieville on 25 October last year because one cannot close one’s eyes to the reality and because we want no share in forced removal. [Interjections.]

What is the CP’s standpoint? According to the hon member for Waterberg their standpoint is that if people feel they do not want a Black residential area in their vicinity, it is their right to agitate against it. I agree with that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Mr Theunissen may make no further interjections during the course of this speech. The hon member for Krugersdorp may proceed.

It is their right to agitate against it. In a democracy the public has a right to peaceful protest. This right is not restricted to these Whites, however. Blacks, also have a right to use peaceful channels to put their standpoint and give reasons as to why they do not want to be moved from a certain area. The authorities are then called in to reconcile these conflicting standpoints. This, viz this reconciliation action, is precisely what we are doing in Krugersdorp at present. I want to say here today I am grateful, excited and joyful about what is happening there among people who hon members would not believe could get on with each other normally.

In a period of high tension—this I have learnt—all people, White and Black, have a need for security. The State has a duty to protect their lives and their property, and I am afraid there is no compromise to be made on this score. If emotion upsets the balance, it can be restored only with reason. It is amazing what a sobering effect a peaceful, constructive dialogue has when one is face to face with the man one disagrees with and does not malign him behind his back.

This Parliament is fighting for relevance; it is shocking then to see how some people avail themselves of superficialities. When I listen to some of the standpoints being put in this House, I wonder whether we deserve peace in this country.

The hon member for Houghton knows Black politics, but has a superficial knowledge of White politics. The opposite is true of the hon member for Rissik. Apparently he knows something about White politics and very little about Black politics. Together they are seeking the downfall of the Government and do not hesitate to stir up emotions in a reckless way. On 25 March 1986 the hon member for Houghton referred to “White hooligans from across the road” against whom the inhabitants of Munsieville should be protected. I want to tell the hon member that remark is scandalous and an undeserved dig at the inhabitants of Dan Pienaarville. The facts do not justify this nasty remark. [Interjections.] The hon member would be surprised. [Interjections.] Guilty parties have been brought to justice and an urgent lawsuit is pending. The hon member for Houghton is not promoting calm with her conduct. [Interjections.]

†I do not have time to debate the issue with the hon member. The statement as it stands in Hansard is scandalous. I wish the hon member would clarify it and repeat it. I am dealing with the issue.

It is true that…

It is not true the way the hon member put it.

*Someone hurt the Blacks in Kagiso and Munsieville. Someone hurt them a great deal! I say now in public that I am not prepared to stand up for anyone, regardless of who it is, who has hurt these people in a scandalous and unlawful way. The hon member for Houghton exceeded the limit of fairness, however, with an oversimplified remark. Her language in this connection was unpleasant.

I am speaking to the hon member for Rissik now. By way of an interjection he said: “You are vilifying (afvee aan) the Afrikaner.” He knows that is not true. I ask him to read the history of Naboth’s vineyard and F A Venter’s book Die Koning se Wingerd once again. He is not serving the Afrikaner by wanting to build his future on discriminatory practices.

As far as the urbanisation strategy discussed in the President’s Council is concerned, it was outlined clearly that the future lies in buffer strips and higher residential density. The CP is totally absent in this debate. As I quoted earlier, their leader says people should agitate to move such a settlement to the national states. I put it that that is not what their supporters want. Black must be removed to other nearby Black urban areas, but not as far as the national states, since then they have to forego the convenience of garden workers, domestic servants and factory workers. I recently saw a photograph of a little White girl wearing a T-shirt which said: “Vote HNP”. A Black domestic worker was sitting peacefully in the shade next to this little girl.

If Blacks are moved far away, Whites will have to subsidise this removal with millions of rands.

Mr Chairman, I should very much like to associate myself with the argument of the hon member for Krugersdorp about the beneficial effect a good discussion at the right time can have. In this respect I should also like to refer to the hon member for Berea who spoke about the question of negotiation and dialogue from the Government side. He remarked that the Government fails pitifully in this respect and does not speak to people they want to speak to. With respect I want to contend that this is not true.

The times in which we are living are serious, and so is the task entrusted to us. That goes without saying. We are experiencing violence, intimidation and the senseless killing of people in the name of a struggle for freedom almost daily. The solution to these problems does not lie in increased violence, but in dialogue. Do our people really want to talk to one another, however; and if so, why do they not do so? If they do want to talk to one another, why does it look as though the dialogue cannot really get off the ground? I have no doubt that there are certain people and groups in our country who are not at all interested in conducting dialogue—not true dialogue. That faction in the ANC which forms part of the South African Communist Party is not at all interested in dialogue, but only in the transfer of power. In the first issue of this year’s African Communist, their newspaper, they ask the Communist Party to declare the following on behalf of the ANC:

If that is true, a dialogue with the ANC will not be possible since it is being rejected unconditionally in this piece. A national convention with an open agenda and participation by all leaders and certain undertakings which do not involve transfer of power would therefore not be acceptable.

I should like to believe there are members in the ANC’s top structure who are not communist, and indeed, according to reports, are Christians. I should like to believe that, and I should also like to believe that they will want to take part in true dialogue. Those people will then have to distantiate themselves from statements by the South African Communist Party like the one I have just quoted. It is extremely important for these people to do so as soon as possible.

Other leaders in the Black community must also state their willingness to take part in dialogue or make it known in some way or another that they are willing to take part in dialogue. Leading figures, also in the Black communities, have been called and invited to take part in dialogue over and over again, by the State President for example in his speech on 31 January 1986. I should like to quote from Hansard: House of Assembly, 1986, cols 13 and 15 in which the State President says the following:

To all appearances Black leaders do not want to make themselves available for dialogue to which they have been invited, or else are prepared only to take part in secret dialogue. If they do not want to take part in the proposed dialogue at all, what is the problem? Are they not interested in dialogue, or in the forum as proposed? What is the impediment to dialogue?

With respect I want to suggest that it is very important for these leaders to tell the Government and South Africa what they want to do in this respect. It is in the interests of all reasonable and peaceloving people in South Africa for the leaders to spell out their view. The leaders must spell out their view, or at least convey it if they do not want to spell it out. A better and peaceful South Africa cannot be created without the involvement also of the Black leaders of the South African community. The State President made this clear in Port Elizabeth on 30 September 1985 when he said:

Without negotiation, however, we cannot institute that constitutional model which will involve all groups to the highest level. The leaders from all groups who are serious about the democracy and the future of South Africa have a bounden duty to become involved in the dialogue to which they have been invited as soon as possible.

This brings me to another aspect. In our search for solutions to our country’s problems we must guard on the one hand against simply labelling one another as liberals, communists, socialists or leftists. There are examples in our history of people who made statements which are quite right according to today’s perspectives, but were ahead of their time, and those people were often completely alienated from their own people. On the other side of the coin we must all guard against being used as instruments of communism. One cannot be a communist and a Christian. I once again refer to the communists’ newspaper, the African Communist, in which one of their spokesmen, Tloko Mdlalose, states as follows:

The communists will use us, our churches and our ministers wherever possible to attain their objectives in South Africa. In this connection they say:

In my opinion our churches should take cognisance of the communists’ standpoint on the Church, viz that inter alia the Church did not address its task as Church properly in the past, and that the Church did not address the pain or the cause of the conflict, but essentially occupied itself with heavenly or moral things. They call the writers of the Khairos document as witnesses of this. They say although they do not agree with everything in the document, it still indicates the role the Church can play in the struggle for freedom. In addition they say the Church’s role in the struggle for freedom has increased because they support a national freedom movement. According to them the Church identifies itself with the social and intellectual wind of change which is blowing internationally. They also say the present order which is generally accepted as the most reactionary, chauvinistic and imperialist element of “finance capital” is precisely the Government of the day. The Church is also described as a powerful institution, well endowed with property, which supports the revolution only to protect its long-term interests. It is also said that the Church has a history of “vacillation and duplicity”.

In this respect I should like to refer to what Alexander Solzhenitsyn says in this connection. I quote:

We must take cognisance of these things and as State and as Church in this country who profess that we are Christians—we profess this in our Constitution’s preamble as well—we must reach out to one another and speak to our people. We must be less eager to score points off one another and to alienate one another with petty-minded conduct.

Mr Chairman, the progress of any economy in any country also depends on certain non-economic factors. We shall read in any economic guide that law and order is a prerequisite for economic progress. It is clear to everyone today that the unrest conditions in South Africa themselves are making a powerful contribution to the state of depression South Africa is experiencing. The economy will not recover until the Government has restored this order.

The State President promised us a clean government in 1981. Now that certain Ministers are already buying preferment shares, that is no longer the main issue. The main issue is not whether or not we have a clean government, but whether or not we have a strong government today. A clean government means nothing if it is not strong as well.

Because the Government does not take strong action, we have a situation in which the communist flag is displayed at funerals, in which the ANC wear their uniforms openly and in which school books are burnt— even in Beaufort West. Rent is not collected, and this points to a breakdown of order in the Black residential areas. Whites are chased out of parks in Johannesburg. The ANC threatens that the unrest is deliberately going to be extended to the White areas.

The violent conditions have deteriorated dramatically since the state of emergency was lifted. That should never have happened. The hon the Minister of Law and Order should never have allowed the state of emergency to be lifted, since to impose it again will make even heavier demands on him than when he had to do so the first time.

In the meantime, White reaction is intensifying. Where boycotts and stay-away campaigns were organised, at Warmbad, at Nelspruit, at George, we find the Whites have organised a counteraction; in some cases with astounding success. In Groblersdal people grabbed for their guns. We also read the following for example: “White River goes for its guns”. On the front page of Die Volksblad of 27 March we read what happened in Aliwal North:

I want to tell the hon member for Houghton inter alia this afternoon they must not think that because the Blacks are so demonstrative—that is part of their nature—and because the Whites in a very special sense are much slower to anger, the anger and mounting feelings and emotions of the Whites can be underestimated. It would be a very great mistake for anyone to think that because the Whites respond more slowly, they cannot in the end come forward with a deeper feeling and a deeper emotion than anyone else.

The State President has been telling us of a total onslaught on South Africa for years. He and the Government have told us that the total onslaught against South Africa is being launched in the war on our borders. [Interjections.] That onslaught and that war are spilling into our cities and towns today. [Interjections.] That hon Minister knows this, but does not act accordingly. He said the total onslaught of the ANC and the UDF are essentially the same. He is the one man who emphasised this in October 1984. Following this the Defence Force discovered a document at Gaberone which Rapport reported on in June last year. This makes it clear that the association between the ANC and the Communist Party has never been as close as it is at present. In addition, the South African Communist Party, through the ANC, has never been as active in South Africa as it is now.

If that is the case, why is the Government still delaying? Why does the Government pay attention—as apparently it sometimes does—to people who present Mandela as a Marxist, or sometimes even as a kind of Christian, whereas he is a consummate Communist? The reason for this is that the Government either does not see or has forgottern the role played in this situation by the United States of America. Andrew Young said in 1977:

Essentially this is still the American policy today!

I think the hon the Minister and his Government have forgotten that none other than Col Groenewald, the head of the information department of the Defence Force addressed the students of Pretoria as early as 1978 and on that occasion said the following about the Americans:

That is America—

In addition, Col Groenewald contended that the unrest in South Africa was inspired by America and the rabble-rousers were trained by America. According to Col Groenewald the Americans are playing right into the hands of the Russians here in South Africa. The Government, and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, are falling over their feet as it were to oblige the Americans. They do not realise clearly enough that the Americans make up an integral part of the total onslaught on South Africa.

That is why we are astounded that appeals are still coming from NP ranks, from the Nasionale Pers for example, for discussions to be held with the African National Congress. According to the last Nasionalis which appeared, the unrest, although restricted to the Black areas, is leading to an increasing feeling of oppression in the hearts of many Whites. That is correct, but this oppression is now penetrating primarily to the hearts of the Nationalists. They are realising it now, and this is a result of the Government’s not acting strongly and powerfully to restore the order in South Africa by making use of all the means at its disposal. If the Government does not do this, nothing good can happen in South Africa. The Government’s first and most important priority should be to use all the means at its disposal—the Police, the Defence Force, everything at its disposal—to restore order in the shortest possible time. They must announce another state of emergency for an indefinite period. Under a certain Sir Gerald Templer, Malaysia had a state of emergency for ten years. It continued until they had wiped out the communists in Malaysia. If the same thing has to happen in South Africa, we must do that now.

South Africa stands before the greatest single decision in its history. The choice is not between reform and separate development; the choice for South Africa, here and now, is either to reform, and if so to speak to the ANC and carry things through to the stage of having a Black State President, or to restore order by using all possible means for this purpose—we are in the war the State President spoke of in earlier years—and to break the power of the African National Congress and all its sympathisers. Both things cannot be done, however.

We want to issue a timely word of warning to the Government today. I make no apology for speaking from the point of view of White politics. I am here today for the primary reason, as far as I am capable of doing so, of interpreting what is happening in respect of the White people of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is why we want to warn the Government today that the Whites will protect themselves as soon as they discover that their security is no longer guaranteed. The hon the Minister and the Government must not say then that they have taken the law into their own hands. If the State President, with his Government, does not take the lead in this connection now, this State President will be known in history as a man who allowed the NP of a Malan, a Strydom and a Verwoerd to split twice, but could not restore order in South Africa’s hour of crisis.

Mr Chairman, it is obvious when the hon member for Sasolburg participates in a debate and refers to the history of the NP that he stops at Dr Verwoerd. He has never made any reference to Mr Vorster. We should like to hear CP comments here and there as regards that hon member’s absolute contempt for Mr Vorster. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sasolburg spoke inter alia of the White reaction and mentioned Warmbaths, White River and Aliwal North.

What about Robertsham?

You received such a thrashing in Robertsham that you will never win that seat of yours.

We received more votes in Robertsham than the Progs and the CP jointly and the hon member for Langlaagte will not return to this House.

The hon member for Sasolburg spoke about the White reaction. We understand the White reaction. We on this side of the House understand it but it is precisely this reaction on the side of the Whites which makes it even more essential that the Government holding that responsible position in South Africa should maintain its balance and not go too far by aggravating a situation instead of improving it.

Further, it was music to my ears; the hon member for Sasolburg, together with his rightist kindred spirits and the CP, attempted ridiculing the pronouncements of the State President and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, pronouncements in which they warned this country that we were facing a total onslaught. Those hon members ridiculed this. They told the people of South Africa out there that P W Botha was making party-political capital out of telling us that there was a total onslaught on South Africa. [Interjections.] Now the hon member for Sasolburg says the Government is not acting because there is a total onslaught against this country. [Interjections.]

This Government is not afraid of taking strong action. We are criticised in the annals of the world because the Government takes strong action here and there and people are hurt and shot. Hon members of the rightist alliance should take note of one fact: There is no solution in violence only. The solution also has to be sought by way of negotiation. This afternoon we listened—it has been recorded and hon members can read it in Hansard—to the leader of the CP who said it was of no avail to negotiate with Winnie Mandela or with Buthelezi …

Do you want to negotiate with Winnie Mandela?

Sir, if the hon member would only be quiet, he might learn something. The hon member is continually embarrassing our dyed-in-the-wool UP supporters. [Interjections.] I shall leave the hon member for Sasolburg there and square accounts with him in the course of my speech.

During this debate the hon member for Meyerton—someone I respect very highly because, unlike other hon members and me, he does not often make a noise but listens and contributes from time to time; something for which I respect him—said in the wisdom of his years yesterday afternoon and I quote:

And these are the key words:

The hon member for Meyerton said this to us in this House yesterday. He even drew the comparison that the National Party was now following the way of the old United Party and was splintering. The hon member for Meyerton’s insinuation: According to him the Conservative Party is the only one following a principled way.

Hear, hear!

That the Conservative Party is the only one recognising a policy and a standpoint which will stand the test of time.

Hear, hear!

That is the insinuation but let us test this pure, blue-blooded party somewhat, Sir. Let us test that party in the light of what we read from the pen of the rightist alliance. [Interjections.] Let us examine what its members say. The hon leader of the Conservative Party …

Who is he?

It is recorded that the hon leader of the Conservative Party said he had no objection to members of his party also holding AWB membership.

Oh, we were all in the OB! All of us together! [Interjections.]

Yes, Mr Chairman, that is the attitude! The hon member for Langlaagte therefore confirms that they have no objection that members of their party may also hold AWB membership. It has been recorded, however …

We did not even have you baptised in church! [Interjections.]

Order! Some hon members are speaking too loudly and making irrelevant interjections too frequently.

Mr Chairman, in mentioning the Ossewabrandwag—this very National Party, under the leadership of Dr Daantjie Malan, rejected the Ossewabrandwag.

After how many years?

Why, Mr Chairman?

After how many years?

That does not matter. He saw which way things were heading and he rejected the Ossewabrandwag. [Interjections.] I therefore challenge hon members…

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte’s voice is being heard interjecting far too often. The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I therefore want to test hon members of the CP tonight in the light of the AWB standpoints and, if they have the courage of their convictions as Dr Daantjie Malan had, they must either defend or reject those standpoints tonight. [Interjections.] Yes, Mr Chairman, let us start with the AWB standpoints.

Rather the AWB than the ANC!

The AWB claims to campaign for the institutions of a pure Afrikaner people’s state in certain parts of the Transvaal, the Free State and Northern Natal. Now I ask those hon members who are trying so hard to hide behind the Ossewabrandwag to tell us whether they agree with this standpoint or not.

Where is Jan Hoon going to live? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want this recorded tonight because these people are moving around South Africa and flagrantly hawking the emotions of the Afrikaners and of White Voters out there. [Interjections.]

The second AWB standpoint is that it campaigns for the establishment of a constitutional system in which the executive president heads a partyless government—which means an Afrikaner dictatorship. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, these people must now tell us whether they support or reject this standpoint. Do they have the courage of Dr Daantjie Malan today or have they also become a political mouse, like the hon leader of the Conservative Party, who cannot adopt a standpoint? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Turffontein must withdraw those words—the words with which he called the hon member for Waterberg a mouse.

I withdraw them, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] The third AWB standpoint … [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Turffontein withdraw that statement?

I did withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Can you not rule that the hon member for Turffontein should refer to the late Dr D F Malan more respectfully? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the third AWB standpoint comprises a system of government according to which members of the House of Assembly will not be elected but nominated by the “hoofraad” of the AWB from organisations representing specific professional groups. [Interjections.] Do hon members of the CP accept this or not? The deputy leader of the Conservative Party, the hon member for Lichtenburg, is present in the House now. Can he tell me whether he permits members of his party to hold AWB membership?

They can belong to what they like! [Interjections.]

Oh, they can belong to what they like! They can therefore serve two gods. [Interjections.] They can therefore accept AWB principles and simultaneously those of the CP. [interjections.] so that is how the matter stands. [Interjections.] I now want to know from hon members of the CP whether they would approve the application of an AWB member for membership of the Conservative Party?

As long as he subscribes to party principles. [Interjections.]

He has to subscribe to party principles but he is also a member of the AWB and subscribes to the principles of that organisation as well.

But you were a Prog and an old UP man simultaneously! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Langlaagte is becoming excessively nervous. [Interjections.] He had better go to Langlaagte to try canvassing voters and return here when he is calmer again. [Interjections.] Let us proceed with the objectives of the AWB. As an interim measure it envisages the establishment of a para-military force, the so-called “Boere-brandwag”, members of which are already patrolling the streets in certain towns and which consists of young men who have already completed their military training and are under the control of a “burgerraad” which meets regularly in secret. Do hon members of the Conservative Party accept this statement of purpose of the AWB?

Business suspended at 18h45 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, before suspension of business, I was putting certain AWB standpoints as a test to a party which claims that it is principled one whereas it permits its members to hold membership of an organisation like the AWB as well. This elicited a peculiar response from hon members of the CP. The hon member for Lichtenburg for instance said inter alia “CP members can belong to what they like.”

That includes the UDF.

That includes any organisation—the AWB among others. I now want to ask the hon member for Lichtenburg what the leader of the AWB is after in the CP caucus.

Do you belong to the Broederbond?

I do not belong to the Broederbond. [Interjections.]

Aren’t you good enough?

I am not interested in the Broederbond or any other organisation. I belong to the NP.

I dealt inter alia with the following points: The AWB standpoints for an Afrikaner people’s state, for a partyless government and for a “hoofraad” to nominate members of the House of Assembly and with paramilitary units—the so-called “Boerebrandwagte”—to protect Whites. [Interjections.] In addition the AWB claims to stand for the creation of guard units, like motorised stormy petrels, the blitz commando and the youth commando, which are already being trained in the Northern Transvaal. The CP must also tell us their standpoint on this. [Interjections.]

The next AWB standpoints are the large-scale enforced movement on non-Whites to areas outside the state under Afrikaner authority. I assume CP members agree with this. They certainly stand for the enforced movement of Blacks from areas where they do not desire the presence of those people. [Interjections.]

The next standpoint is very interesting. They speak of “’n basterland buite die volkstaat, waar die res van die Wittes maar kan loop en lekkerkry en met die Kleurlinge en Indiërs verpaar.”

Lastly they speak of a separate homeland for Coloureds in the Western Cape and limited self-government for Indians under strict conditions within a specific area.

We are conducting a political debate here and I think it is no more than right that the CP should tell us where it stands—the people out there want to know— …

What people?

The voting public. The White voters of South Africa want to know where the CP stands as regards the AWB. Every day we hear arguments ad infinitum from the side of the CP that this Government is governing a country in association with the Labour Party. The hon member for Waterberg actually said this afternoon he was not prepared to be governed by the Rev Hendrickse as a member of the South African Cabinet. [Interjections.] There is not one NP member, however, who is also a member of the Labour Party. [Interjections.] That is a separate political party with its own structure, its own policy and its own leaders—in accordance with the tricameral parliamentary system. Do any members of the Labour Party belong to the CP as well?

Mr Chairman, I wish to ask the hon member for Turffontein whether it is more important that a person should belong to the same party or that one should sit in the same Cabinet and exercise authority over the whole of South Africa? Is it not far more important to ask how they reconcile different standpoints in the Cabinet than whether they want to belong to the same party? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it not customary in this House for an hon member to put a question only from his own seat?

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, it is very strange to see what peculiarities the fraternisation among the rightest groups is bringing to the fore. It is interesting that the hon member for Sasolburg suddenly wishes to protect the CP as regards the fact that it permits its members to join the AWB. Now I wish to ask the hon member for Sasolburg, who represents the HNP, whether members of the HNP may belong to the AWB.

No. [Interjections.]

There we have a categoric statement by a member of the HNP. I also wish to ask the hon member whether he agrees with the standpoints as regards the AWB as I have set them out here tonight.

No.

Now I ask why the hon member has the courage of his convictions to adopt such a standpoint while sitting among that lot with whom he is fraternising. Why do hon members of the CP not have the courage of their convictions to say whether they agree or not? All I want say is that that is what the so-called CP adherence to principle means to which the hon member for Meyerton referred. [Interjections.] This is the party, according to the hon member, of which the adherence to principle would withstand the test of time.

You still have to reply to my question.

I shall reply to the hon member’s question. I say to him we have a tricameral system in South Africa approved by a two-thirds majority of White South African voters. They indicated support that all legislation in South Africa should not only be approved by this House of Assembly but by all three Houses of Parliament and that there should be real power-sharing between Whites, Coloureds and Asians. If we as the Government, as the majority party in this House, wish to put any legislation through the tricameral Parliament, we naturally have to obtain the consent of the other two Houses. Nevertheless we do not permit members of the NP to join the Labour Party as well; neither do members of the Labour Party join the NP. So hon members’ argument means absolutely nothing.

The hon Leader of the CP today reaffirmed that his only option—hon members should listen very carefully now—for South Africa was an own state for Whites with an own parliament for Whites. Neither is the CP prepared to enter into any negotiations within one state in South Africa with either radical elements in Black ranks or even with moderate people like Chief Minister Buthelezi. Its standpoint is therefore moving increasingly toward those of the AWB which I have set out here tonight. I want to hold up this pamphlet on which we have debated tonight to hon members. I have confronted hon members of the CP with this idea of a “Boerestaat” consisting of parts of the Transvaal, the Free State and Northern Natal. I think it is the responsibility of hon members of the CP to go to the Eastern Cape, the remainder of the Cape Province, the remainder of Natal and some parts of the Transvaal to tell White voters they will not ultimately land in the grip of a White government but remain part of that bastard state the AWB spoke about.

That is not CP policy and we tell this to people.

I ask the hon member for Lichtenburg whether he accepts these boundaries as a possible solution for South Africa.

You do not even know what our policy is. [Interjections.]

I am asking the hon member because we do not know what their policy is. I am asking the hon member for Lichtenburg whether he accepts this thing as a possible solution.

But that is not our policy.

Here is a CP pamphlet. It says: “Is dit dalk dit antwoord?” [Interjections.] It says: “Stuit hierdie verraad teen die Blankes. Sluit nou aan by die KP. Voltooi die vormpie langsaan.” It was compiled in Roodeplaat by Mr At van Wyk of the Conservative Party of South Africa and printed by Mr P G van Wyk. [Interjections.]

Hon members are perpetrating fraud in South Africa; they are not telling South Africa where they are heading with this country. [Interjections.] Now hon members of the NP are being ridiculed for convening a federal congress to discuss a future dispensation for South Africa; now this is being ridiculed. Nevertheless the CP does not have the courage of its convictions to tell Whites where it is going with South Africa. [Interjections.]

I contend the CP has two choices. The present boundaries of the so-called White South Africa or White fatherland the CP is preaching about to the voters of South Africa have to be maintained in their present form and composition under blatant White domination. The unravelling of only the Witwatersrand for instance is an impossible task and the CP knows this as well as we do. This is an illusion. It holds up a policy to the White voters of South Africa which it knows itself cannot be applied in this country.

The CP says such large amounts of money should not be spent on the development of Blacks and the national states. In his amendment moved in the Appropriation Debate, the hon member for Sunnyside criticised the redistribution of income and said it was an evil in South Africa.

The CP is always hiding behind Dr Verwoerd. Dr Verwoerd’s standpoint was that no White capital should be spent in the Black national states of South Africa. I now want to know of hon CP members whether they stand by Dr Verwoerd or have they accepted Mr Vorster’s modification that White capital should be spent in the national states to make those areas economically viable to become a magnet for attracting Blacks. [Interjections.] Hon members must reply to us on that now.

The choice is between blatant domination over the whole of South Africa as it is at present or a new map as it is held up by the Roodeplaat CP with a new, purified White homeland, Afrikaner state or “Boerestaat” as appealed for by them and their kindred spirits.

We are here as the highest authority in South Africa and we represent South African Whites. This rightist fraternisation has resulted in the HNP, the Afrikaner-weerstandsbeweging, the Afrikaner-volkswag and the CP so outbidding one another for the favour of radical rightist thinking in South Africa and that their minds have become so murky that they are losing contact with South African realities.

If hon CP members did not listen to them, they can read the speeches of my colleagues, the hon members for Innesdal, Krugersdorp, Stellenbosch and other hon members. I want to state it again here today: The blatant exploitation of the naked emotion of Whites will mean the downfall of the Whites as surely as we are gathered in the House of Assembly in Cape Town tonight. [Interjections.] We want to warn hon members. Irresponsible action which may be compared with the emotional incitement of the South African Communist Party, the African National Congress and the United Democratic Front results in Whites’ taking power into their own hands. An example of this was the group of young people in Pietersburg which indiscriminately shot Blacks on the station a few years ago. As the hon member for Krugersdorp said, it is good Whites, who have at one time or another been subjected to absolute blatant intimidation and emotional exploitation from the side of rightist elements, who drive down the street, draw a revolver and shoot Blacks indiscriminately.

I ask tonight: What is the difference between that type of incitement in South Africa and the conduct of the South African Communist Party and the ANC, which are responsible for the deaths of innocent people in South Africa? I requested the hon leader of the CP to be present here; I personally wrote him a letter. The Chief Whip of the CP wrote back asking me if I did not know the rules; he said this had to be done by the Whips. I asked the Whips to request the hon leader to be present here. He must know we are conducting a political debate but he had the audacity to participate in the debate and then to leave.

Tonight he quoted from the NP information sheet I have before me. He dealt with the front page and I asked him why he did not deal with the back page. I now want to ask those hon members among whom are decent people of sound understanding … [Interjections.]

Only “Oom” Willie!

On the back page of this sheet—if hon members of the CP wish to object to this, they may—the NP compares the AWB with the ANC. These people have exactly the same methods with differing objectives in mind for South Africa. The time has come when we can no longer afford to permit these elements to whip up Whites on the one side and Blacks on the other against each other because this will certainly end in confrontation. The South African community as a whole will pay the price for this incitement. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Meyerton made a statement which surprised me. He said there were thousands of White voters today in whose eyes even the AWB was no longer rightist enough. Is that the reason why the hon member and his colleagues are outbidding the AWB for the support of those elements in South Africa? [Interjections.] We have a responsibility as the leaders of South Africa. Over the years, since 1652 when Jan van Riebeeck landed in this country, the White has taken the lead with his capital, initiative and skill. Is it not our responsibility to take the lead in South Africa and tell Whites and Blacks: “For heaven’s sake, we must get together otherwise we will have a confrontation which this country certainly cannot afford!” [Interjections.]

I wish to close now. The hon member for Waterberg said inter alia he rejected Mrs Winnie Mandela’s standpoint as contained in the interview in The Star. We on this side of the House want to tell the hon member today we also reject this standpoint but we also reject that of Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche and the Afrikaner-weerstandsbeweging. [Interjections.] South Africa cannot afford the ANC and the AWB and their kindred spirits. Tonight I appeal to hon members like the hon member for Barberton who is laughing at me. I ask the hon member: How will confrontation end in South Africa?

Leave him alone! He has just had dinner, André! [Interjections.]

I offer that in conclusion. We in the NP wish to tell the hon the Minister of Finance in particular that in this Budget he has proved that the interests of not only the Whites but of South Africa, including our underdeveloped people, were borne in mind when it was drawn up. I wish to tell the hon the Minister in public tonight that I was talking to businessmen in Johannesburg a year ago when they told me, just as hon members of the Opposition such as the hon members for Yeoville and Sunnyside said: “Get rid of Barend du Plessis as the Minister of Finance. He is making a mess.” I now want to tell hon members that on Saturday I was at the races in Turffontein which is a gathering of some of the most eminent businessmen in South Africa and in Johannesburg. There a man told me: “I eat my words. I tell you, Barend du Plessis is on the right road and we congratulate him.”

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Turffontein is a very experienced politician who contributed brilliantly here tonight and I think he succeeded in a masterly manner in backing the CP into a corner because of its connections with the AWB. [Interjections.] He also mentioned he had been to the races last Saturday and I should very much like to pay him a visit on the strength of that.

If one travelled by suburban train between Observatory and Woodstock at the beginning of this year, one was struck by a slogan on the back of a building. It was printed in red and green and ran: “1986—Year of the Revolution”. Those words have been painted over since but I think it could be said that South Africa has experienced what must have been one of the most violent revolutionary onslaughts in its history over the past 18 months. I wish to emphasise that I think personally a revolution is light years away but we have experienced a very intense revolutionary onslaught and, in order to combat this effectively, it is vital that there should be understanding of the real nature of this onslaught but also of its causes.

Unfortunately the contrary is true. There are a considerable number of misconceptions in both White and Black ranks on the real nature of this revolutionary onslaught. In White ranks—in saying this I am speaking specifically of followers and representatives of the PFP—there is a tendency to lay the blame for the causes of this onslaught squarely on so-called apartheid. They hold the political system of the day responsible for this revolutionary onslaught. Their solution is very simple: Replace this political institution with an institution of one-man-one-vote and behold, tomorrow the revolutionary onslaught will be over! Nevertheless there are also people in White ranks who want to blame the causes of this revolution entirely on political reform, powersharing or concessions offered. The hon member for Lichtenburg in particular did this. Their solution is also relatively simple: Suspend all power-sharing, apply radical division, put the security forces to maximum use and behold, tomorrow the revolutionary onslaught will also be over. There are also a considerable number of misconceptions in Black ranks, however, on the actual nature of this onslaught. There are Blacks participating in this onslaught who are honestly convinced they are pursuing a bona fide freedom struggle which will cause the so-called heaven on earth to descend for Blacks.

Not one of these concepts is correct and consequently the solutions are not on target either. Whether we like it or not and whether we want to admit it or not, the fact is that this onslaught we are experiencing is part of the total onslaught against which the State President has warned repeatedly.

I wish to associate myself at this point with the previous speaker, the hon member for Turffontein. It is true that, when the State President pointed out the total onslaught, hon members of the PFP and the CP said it was an NP trick to gain the support of the voters. [Interjections.] What is happening now? People who were laughing hardest about this onslaught are now the quickest to make a fuss about it. It is amazing how many people have become excited about this onslaught in this House.

Without doubt the initiator of this onslaught is the South African Communist Party acting as the agent of Soviet expansionism. In the process it makes use of a simple strategy applied very successfully in the other parts of the world.

I am referring to the strategy of the two-phase revolution. The first phase consists of a so-called democratic revolution or waging a struggle for freedom to throw off the yoke of the imperialist or the political oppressor. The second phase has to follow immediately upon the first and this comprises a Marxist-Socialist revolution. In many cases people participating in the first phase are not even aware of the actual purpose of the second phase. In other words, it involves a simple strategy. It is a two-phase revolution: A freedom struggle followed by a Marxist-Socialist revolution. [Interjections.]

In South Africa a very important element is added which is that scholars are used as revolutionary agents. This is not done without reason. A revolutionary agent is the person on the first level who has to cause the violence which brings about change. It was the worker in the Soviet Union, the peasant farmer in China and the student in Europe. In South Africa it is the scholar and I wish to repeat that this is not the case without reason. If a worker resists the constitutional system violently, one may shoot him. If a peasant farmers does it, one may shoot him and, if a student does it, one may perhaps even shoot him. If a scholar does it, one cannot shoot him for reasons I need not explain to hon members tonight and that is why he is deliberately chosen to act as a revolutionary agent. If one is therefore to start firing on these revolutionary agents on a large scale, one is playing directly into the hands of the people who are using them as revolutionary agents for precisely that reason.

What is the solution then? What counterstrategy can one use against the revolutionary onslaught I have spelt out?

Before getting to that answer, just this comment: The allegation that the Government has lost control over this matter is untrue. Various speakers stood up and insinuated that the Government was powerless; we were on the brink of collapse; the revolution was on hand and no one could control it.

You are living in a dream world!

I am not living in a dream world. [Interjections.]

One should not measure the successes of this onslaught against what happens superficially. One should measure the success of a revolutionary onslaught against the objectives set for itself by the organisation launching the onslaught. What are those objectives? It was an objective that the ANC should be in power in Pretoria before Christmas last year. That was the objective but the ANC is miles off target. In the light of their own stated objectives, their effort has not been successful. We take such fright at their efforts which are falling apart that it is just not true. It is thanks to the effective action of the Government that these revolutionary forces have not yet attained their own stated objectives.

What is the solution? I shall close by stating it.

The solution is probably power-sharing.

I am getting to the solution, especially with reference to the use of students as revolutionary agents. I do not know whether we can combat problems which have crystallised out in the present generation because what has happened? What has happened is that a social problem has actually been exploited to promote Marxism. What are we actually dealing with here?

We are dealing with a crisis of authority in Black residential areas. We are dealing with a parent-child relationship which has broken down. When I asked the Chairman of the Town Council of Mohlakeng: “Why do you not control your children?”, he told me: “But, Sir, many of these children who are at the spearpoint of the unrest have no fathers.” We also have to deal here with one of the results of the migrant labour system. I do not condemn the migrant labour system as a whole—it has supplied many people with work—but the fact is that we have to do here with children without fathers.

We are dealing with a social problem. [Interjections.] In the case of those who still have fathers, conditions in a Black residential area are of such a nature—parents go to work early and come home late and in addition four or five families are cooped up in one house—that there is no question of a parent-child relationship. All I say is that we shall effectively solve this problem of scholars as revolutionary agents if we pay attention to housing and if we establish Blacks there on a sound family basis. [Interjections.]

My penultimate comment…

What about a few sjamboks?

Sjamboks work up to a point. They work up to a point but we shall have to trace the problem to its roots before solving it. [Interjections.]

Lastly I wish to say I am referring to a strategy which is related to a freedom struggle.

Order! The hon member for Koedoespoort is talking continuously. The hon member for Randfontein may proceed.

This means that one should not create room for such a freedom struggle to take place which therefore means a political solution. When the NP says it wishes to come up with a political solution as a counterrevolutionary strategy, that does not mean abdication. We should remember one point. Whites in South Africa are not colonials. For that very reason there is no other way in which the Whites in South Africa will surrender the Government unilaterally under the NP.

The guidelines within which a solution is being sought are from the words of a Nigerian journalist who wrote the following. He actually wrote a book on why South Africa should be admitted to the Organisation for African Unity. He said the following:

I am not saying we should apply the Swiss model here. I am not saying one should follow a classical confederal or federal model, but the confederal or federal models do offer the political solution which can combat the first phase of the revolution effectively. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it was refreshing to listen to the speech by the hon member for Randfontein. He is one of our intellectual people whom it is always worth while listening to. [Interjections.] In my periodical Spore he wrote an article about Halley’s Comet recently and it received such a response that it was taken over by various other publications.

I do not know whether the hon member for Yeoville can see the next Halley’s Comet because he makes predictions. He is a prophet on his own. After all, he said that in the year 2000 this and that would happen but then the PFP will no longer exist. In the year 2000 the PFP will no longer exist, but we shall still be here.

This is in fact a financial debate and therefore I am speaking again with my great friend, the hon the Minister of Finance. To begin with, I want to say that he will probably recall that about a year ago I said to him that there were certain things I could not understand. I am a dumb, stupid person. I cannot understand how it is that moskonfyt that is made in Wellington is more expensive in Cape Town than in Johannesburg. At the time it was R1,99 here whereas in Johannesburg it cost about 99c. [Interjections.] He then told me it was due to free enterprise, free trade and that kind of thing. Now I can say to hon members that the price of moskonfyt has dropped by 40c.

I now come to another matter. I now wish to protest about something in Johannesburg. The other day I walked to the shop around the comer which is only a few kilometres from where the hon member for Randburg lives. I wanted to buy chocolates. The same chocolates made by that well-known firm that sells chocolate, cost R1,12 there. On the shelf at the back, however, there was a slab for 77c. My wife is very fond of chocolate but I told her not to take that chocolate because it was too expensive. I promised that I would bring her chocolate from Cape Town. [Interjections.] Here in the Cape that same chocolate costs 69c! [Interjections.] Now I want to ask the hon the Minister which one he chooses—the blue, the red or the green— and I shall send him one!

The business world, not the NP, is the cause of inflation. The people who offer coupons for cheaper fuel and that kind of thing are only interested in free publicity. We can no longer tolerate that, [Interjections.] They are killing the retail trade; they are only concerned about themselves. I shall fight that business world in every way possible. I shall not permit the business world to fan inflation in that way. There is one company which has now put its fiftieth model of car on the market but then they complain that they do not make a profit! I think it is high time that we call the business world to account. [Interjections.] I shall fight them as long as they do not do their share and fail to co-operate with the NP. [Interjections.] The other day in my constituency the CP came up with this message:

According to The Southern Courier, Dr Connie Mulder and Mr Clive Derby-Lewis said before the meeting:

That is what was said there. During the meeting held there that evening, after many people had been brought there by the CP and there may have been some of my people there too, the large crowd of 80 people, according to my information, attended the meeting addressed by Dr Connie Mulder and Mr Clive Derby-Lewis. Therefore they did not make such an impression. However on that evening Dr Mulder said:

I do not know how they are going to manage to hold an election in October. That is their idea. They want to hold a general election in October but there is not even a delimitation commission. How are they going to manage to hold it in October? They must now tell us what they are planning. This Parliament gave approval for the State President to determine the times he saw fit for the sessions of Parliament. Each Parliament lasts for five years, calculated from the day it starts its first session. The present Parliament was formed in September 1984. By my calculation, in my simplicity, this Parliament will exist until 1989.

Therefore the hon members of the CP will have to wait a very long time for the next election. However I do not know how they are ultimately going to solve the issue by way of partition.

Come back know to …

No, wait! Let us be reasonable now. That hon member and I are great friends. [Interjections.]

But surely you were at…

Wait now! [Interjections.] That hon member for Sasolburg! He sits squashed between the NRP and the NP. He comes around to us now and again but now he must help to apply partition in the Free State—in the Free State, where there are still only 16,8% Whites. How will that be possible? Are the CP going to move the Whites or are they going to move the Blacks? I want to ask the CP to state that very clearly to us.

Actually, in the limited time at my disposal I wish to discuss the new Bureau for Information this evening. Today this release was given to the SA Press and the whole idea is that effective communication between the Government and the people of South Africa should be brought about.

Internal communication is a bigger task than external communication. If we are unable to communicate properly internally, then we cannot communicate properly externally either. I think that underlying this is in fact the important idea that every department in the Government can still do its own liaison work. The Bureau will not administer secret funds. It is an open organisation.

However, a double process must take place here. It must listen to the opinions of the community and the individuals, but it must also be able to market the policy of the Government. The Bureau is accessible to all races. It must promote communication between the Government and the internal and external media. The Bureau can utilise the skills of the private sector’s consultants.

One directorate is responsible for the production of audio-visual material and publications. The second division is concerned with liaison with the internal media. The foreign media are reached by a different division. Then, too, there is a division that will liaise with South African groups, organisations and communities. This division is responsible for the co-ordination of the Bureau’s regional offices. The regional offices will also issue regional journals for the various layers of the population. It is also their task to finalise guests’ programmes.

Then, too, there is a directorate of planning, which will focus on research into means of communication, the co-ordination of systems and the co-ordination of planning. Planning must be carried out and data collected, and effective communication among the population groups must be achieved. The second arm will bring about co-ordination with State departments. The third arm will see to co-ordination of communication with the Bureau.

We wish this Bureau, with its 304 officials, 285 of whom were previously attached to the Department of Foreign Affairs, every success, and the budget of R28 847 million must meet a real need to create a positive image of our country and its people.

That is what I want to speak about this evening in the short time at my disposal. When we open our newspapers the inference could easily be made that South Africa is on the brink of an abyss. There are South Africans who want to destroy the country’s infrastructures. We see Black youths who want to destroy everything. We also see Black radical organisations that reject every form of discussion or negotiation. We see Whites who leave the land of their birth; there are White youths who seek their future in the ideologies or radical leftist organisations and even take part in them physically. There are Whites who take refuge in right-wing or left-wing radical organisations.

Is this image representative of South Africa? Where are the stories of our children, of our Brown, Asian, Black and White children who dream of achieving their ideals? What has become of our people who work throughout our country every day in our factories, banks, hospitals and community services? What has become of those who have their own cultural views and philosophies of life? Where are the mothers of kwaZakhele, Triomf, Lenasia and Mitchells Plain who perform their task every day as parents and employees, despite all their suffering? Where are the leaders who, throughout our country, at all levels of our society, burn the midnight oil for the sake of peace and progress? Where have these South Africans disappeared to? Has their image faded entirely behind the smoke clouds of violence, resistance and a hard-line attitude?

Yes, there is violence in South Africa. Yes, we are encountering economic problems. Yes, the process of constitutional development has not yet been completed. Yes, there are valid grievances. However, the Government is fully aware of all the problem areas in our country. Indeed, the country has committed itself to the achievement of full democracy.

Has the time not come now for the faith that the Government places in the goodwill that exists among the majority of our people, to be made audible and visible? Why does the Press not make mention of this in a positive way? Why are our newspapers so keen to report only the negative aspects? The day Lesotho’s new head of state was designated, what we read in the Press consisted almost entirely of reports about all the people who had been shot dead in our country. A great fuss was also made of how many people had been shot dead in Bophuthatswana. Why are our own newspapers so negative? Why do they not mention the positive things?

South Africa has a choice. We can listen to the words of the prophets of doom and the radicals—left or right-wing—or we can sidestep and listen to the words of the man, woman or child who is our neighbour if we are prepared to dream together, do together and accomplish together. It is our task in this country not to be prophets of doom but ultimately to enter the future in a positive spirit. Accordingly it is in this spirit that I refer this evening to the negative image of the media through which the reform policy of the Government is being hindered and stymied.

Recently Michael O’Reagan of New York wrote inter alia the following, under the title “One-eyed critics of SA camera ban slammed”, and I quote:

That comes out of New York! Why then are our own newspapers so fond of reacting negatively? I quote further, as follows:

I could continue quoting pieces of this kind to hon members. I have here another newspaper report dated 27 February 1986. It is entitled “Pers ‘het tot skole-onrus bygedra’”. I have several more newspaper cuttings before me, Sir, from which I could quote. I shall quote briefly from one of these cuttings—the title of the report in question is “Die media se vals beeld van Suid-Afrika”—in connection with the group of representatives of the International Association for Human Rights which visited South Africa in February this year:

The report goes on:

Further on in the same report we read:

All these allegations and several more were labelled untrue by spokesmen of the group. Let us, therefore, act decently and fairly. The Press and commerce in South Africa have a duty to support this Government. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rosettenville covered two main topics this evening. In relation to one of those I agree with him but in relation to the other one I cannot. He became quite excited when he spoke about the Bureau for Information. I am afraid I do not share his sentiments. In my view the use of taxpayers’ money to finance some of the things that bureau has already done, such as that advertisement in February, is an abuse of taxpayers’ money and also a corrupt practice. [Interjections.] It epitomises what has happened over many years with this Government, to wit, the confusion of the National Party with the State. As for the Bureau for Information, I cannot understand why the Government wastes its time with amateurs such as the hon the Deputy Minister of Information. Why did they not simply bring back Dr Connie Mulder and Dr Eschel Rhoodie and let them get straight on with the job? [Interjections.]

In regard to the other subject covered by the hon member for Rosettenville, I am pleased to say that like him, I am against inflation and, like him, I am in favour of chocolate. So I would like to support him in that regard.

I wish to address myself primarily to the hon the Minister of Finance this evening. As a starting point I should like to say there is clearly one area of common ground between the Government and ourselves: We both believe that sustained real economic growth is both desirable and essential. If, however, we look at the facts, we have cause for concern. The South African economy has contracted in three out of the past four years. The real GDP has actually dropped in three of the past four years. On a per capita basis the position is even worse. The average South African is now financially worse off than he was 10 years ago.

Tonight I wish to look at one particular aspect, namely the investment aspect. It is a worrying picture, particularly if one recognises that without sufficient investment South Africa will not achieve sustained economic growth. I would hope that the hon the Minister agrees with me on that. What has been happening in this regard? Well, domestically gross domestic fixed investment has declined in every single year since 1981. This also applies to the key manufacturing sector. Internationally, private sector long-term capital movements have been negative in four of the past six years. In total during that period R1,5 billion more long-term private capital left South Africa than came into the country. This is in contrast to the first three decades or so after World War II when foreign investment on average flowed into South Africa and accounted for about 3% of our economic growth per annum.

I should like now to quote the Governor of the SA Reserve Bank, Dr Gerhard de Kock, in this regard. I quote from his annual address delivered on 27 August 1985:

He went on to say later on in his speech:

He says further on:

Finally, he says in a couple of paragraphs further on:

Investment, domestic and international, depends on confidence. Recent trends are clear for all to see. Investors have no confidence in the ability of this Government to manage the affairs of South Africa. The ordinary people of South Africa may not understand economic theory or Government financing, but the results of NP policy are clear for them to see as well: Long queues of desperate work-seekers; hungry schoolchildren— Black, White and Brown; mounting bankruptcies; higher taxes than ever before; falling standards of living; and endemic unrest on an unprecedented scale.

Without stability South Africa will not attract fixed investment from home or abroad, and that stability is not going to come out of the barrel of a gun. It will only arrive when we have government with the consent of the governed. Let us face up to some simple realities. Let us know the price we are paying for apartheid. We may hate them; we may think foreigners are unjust, immoral, two-faced or stupid but let us face the fact that if we attract no further foreign investment over the next five years, and this is even ignoring disinvestment completely, we will have one million more unemployed people by 1990 than we would otherwise have had.

The following was reported as having been said by the Secretary for Finance in 1978, dr Joop de Loor:

It was in 1978 that dr De Loor said that.

I believe that it is unnecessary that we should have to pay this price. Greater unemployment will inevitably lead to greater unrest and even less investment. We already have numerous areas where the Government has lost control: In schools, at funerals, and in townships where no rent is being paid and where police are unable to provide protection to ordinary citizens and where even their own colleagues have been driven from their homes. Such instability will not be suppressed by Casspirs, detentions and bannings. An increasingly ungovernable country will not attract investment. This is a price I am not prepared to pay. We do not want group areas, segregated schools and political oppression in this country, let alone be required to pay for them. I would like to ask hon members on that side and the hon the Minister in particular whether they believe that that is a price worth paying, a price that they are prepared to pay—to allow one’s country to go down the drain in one’s attempts to avoid the inevitable; to cling to White political domination, to “Whites only” suburbs and to “Whites only” schools while South Africa is burning all around us. If they are prepared to pay that price, they must realise that they are destroying this country for the sake of a few more months or years of White exclusivity. History will damn them for it and so will the children, Black and White, of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon member for Randfontein. I think that he made an excellent contribution to the debate and that he gave an effective résumé of the threat which faces South Africa and of the unrest situation which prevails in our country today. It was a brilliant speech in which he also pointed out and emphasised the importance of the role played by the Whites.

This was followed by an interesting speech by the hon member for Rosettenville, who made a moving plea for everyone in this country to act with moderation. As an experienced member of this House, he also suggested solutions to South Africa’s problems.

†I wish now to deal with the hon member for Albany who spoke yesterday afternoon on a very specific matter. I want to deal with the facts of the situation first.

At the end of last year a company called Waste-Tech, which is a well-known and responsible waste disposal company operating throughout the length and the breadth of the Republic, was approached by the PBN and Associates of Edenvale acting as an intermediary for overseas interests to inquire whether Waste-Tech would be able and prepared to handle toxic waste if it were imported into the Republic. Waste-Tech replied in the affirmative, namely that it was in a position to handle such material and that it was willing to do so. It insisted however that if such a contract were to be arranged there would have to be a monitoring by Waste-Tech of each consignment of waste material. Those that were found not to conform to the specifications would be returned in their containers. Waste-Tech however, which is a reputable company, before becoming involved in any way in the matter, said that it had to approach the Department of Environment Affairs for its blessing. In December of last year the department was approached by consultants to Waste-Tech to ask for its views on the matter as Waste-Tech was not at that stage aware of any statutory approvals necessary for the importing of such waste products. My departmental officials immediately indicated that they and the department would be opposed to such a proposal.

I was subsequently asked a few months ago by senior executives of Waste-Tech to give them an interview, and naturally I did so. After hearing at length how that company handled waste products, I confirmed that notwithstanding their ability to dispose of waste material safely, I and my department were nevertheless wholly opposed to importing into South Africa the waste from other countries. [Interjections.]

Meanwhile the intermediary PBN and Associates had approached the Department of Trade and Industry for an import permit. This was the proper procedure to follow. They were advised by the department that no permit would be considered without comment coming from the Department of Environment Affairs. On 21 March, 1986 my department recommended to the Department of Trade and Industry that a permit should not be issued for obvious reasons.

On 2 April PBN and Associates were notified in writing by the Department of Trade and Industry that their application had been refused, and the Director-General of that department issued a Press statement to that effect.

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

No, I shall not answer questions. I am dealing with the matter in my way.

Order! The hon member may not ask a question at this stage.

Tell us what waste products they were! [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us have a look at the hon member for Albany’s speech and then we will deal with all the matters he raised. First of all the hon member refers to the fact that he and his party are very concerned about having a healthy and clean environment. I do not think it is necessary for me to say that we on this side of the House are just as concerned, and we are in a position to do something about having a clean and healthy environment. [Interjections.]

The hon member said that a South African company which specialised in waste disposal had tendered for and won a contract to dispose of certain hazardous industrial waste from the USA. If there was such a tender and a contract, it was a business transaction. I bear no knowledge of it and, as far as I know, the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry and his department also bear no knowledge of it.

I will next deal with the hon member’s suggestion that the waste product concerned was radioactive. I want to state categorically tonight that neither the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry nor my department bears any knowledge that such material was radioactive.

What was it?

It was industrial chemical waste of various kinds.

The hon member in his speech also referred to what he seemed to suggest was an evasive answer by the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry when he referred to “unspecified” waste products. There was a whole variety of unspecified used chemical materials which were part of the waste material that was to have been disposed of here.

The hon member then asked a further series of questions. They could have been clarified by me or the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry if the hon member had come to our departments and asked us. We would have been only too pleased to give him the information. Instead of that the hon member stood up here and made the suggestion that we had something to cover up and that there was something suspicious on the go. [Interjections.]

Quite right!

There was nothing suspicious whatsoever. The hon member then said that I made a denial in reply to a question that the hon member asked me—I think it was on 12 March. He asked me whether my department had authorised or had any knowledge of the importation of poisonous or toxic waste etcetera into South Africa. I answered “No”. There had not been and was not going to be any importation. [Interjections.] The matter followed the normal course of such applications, namely an application for a permit from the department concerned which then referred it to the Department of Environment Affairs. At this point we made our recommendation, as a result of which the permit was not issued and the application was turned down. It is as simple as that. The hon member for Albany is a decent fellow, according to people who know him better than I do. He is a man of good farming stock, judging from the part of South Africa from which he comes. I suggest that he should not lend his ears to rumours, and should certainly not follow the example of some of the people who share the benches of the Official Opposition with him. [Interjections.]

Those are the explanations. It was naturally a matter which was treated confidentially as such matters always are. It was a sensitive matter which was handled in the most sensible way. [Interjections.]

Why was it sensitive?

The last remark made by the hon member was to the effect that South Africa should not become the cesspit of the world for the sake of generating foreign exchange. Why did he say that? The Department of Environment Affairs has only been in existence for four or five years. I do not think there is anybody in this House who can say that it does not have a proud record or that it has not tried to protect the environment of South Africa. I do not see any reason for him to cast such aspersions on the officials and on the department concerned.

I was asking for an assurance. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am sure the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism will understand if I address myself to a somewhat different environment.

It is my opinion that too much nonsense has been bandied about this House of late regarding concepts such as apartheid and power-sharing. On the one hand, many foreigners and also the PFP try, for purely propagandistic reasons, to create the impression that any form of group representation or group protection that is embodied in constitutional or other legislation is apartheid with all its negative, oppressive and disadvantageous connotations. They also try to create the impression that this country is the only country that has group representation or group protection in its Constitution. I submit that that is absolute nonsense. If this were true, Zimbabwe with its separate voters’ rolls for Whites and Blacks would have an apartheid constitution, and Switzerland with its group representation and ethnically-based schools would have an apartheid constitution.

Are they forced or are they voluntary?

Ethnicity in Swiss schools is enforced.

They are not forced, they are voluntary.

I should add that it takes Swiss nationals up to five years to acquire second-tier citizenship in cantons when they move from one to another. That is also enforced.

But they can move.

Switzerland and Zimbabwe are not accused of having apartheid constitutions. Switzerland is, in fact, held up by people of the most divergent political views as a model of power-sharing in a plural society. I agree that it has not acquired that reputation without reason.

There are, of course, other less successful dispensations which have been known as examples of power-sharing. Before the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, for example, that island was governed under a constitution which puported to be power-sharing but also, in terms of the view of the PFP, had elements of apartheid. The president, for example, had to be Greek and the vice-president Turkish. Proportional to the composition of the population, 70% of the seats in parliament went to the Greeks and 30% to the Turks. That was also enforced and entrenched in the constitution, and yet nobody has ever accused Cyprus of having an apartheid constitution.

However, although that constitution also contained elements such as a bill of rights and a constitutional court, it did not prevent the Greek majority from outvoting the Turkish minority consistently and purely on an ethnic basis, no matter how reasonable the things were that the Turks desired or proposed. Therefore, I submit that that powersharing constitution did not share power at all, but that it was in fact majority rule and amounted to a tyranny by the majority.

*That is the reason why the Turkish minority rebelled against it, why it led to bloodshed and also explains the eventual Turkish invasion. For similar, although not precisely the same reasons, the constitutions of Northern Ireland, Nigeria and the Lebanon also led to bloodshed.

Therefore, if those models constitute power-sharing then I want to state clearly today that I am as opposed to power-sharing as I was in 1978, 1980 and 1981 when I made certain speeches which the hon members for Waterberg, Lichtenburg, Barberton, Rissik and others are so fond of using against me nowadays. [Interjections.] That is why I am just as opposed nowadays to the PFP’s model of power-sharing as I was when I made those speeches. As I have already said, models of that kind do not really constitute power-sharing but amount to majority government and in fact constitute a tyranny of the majority.

I now wish to state very clearly to one and all that the NP is totally opposed to any dispensation which amounts to the domination of the White minority or any other minority by a Black majority or any other majority. For that reason we say emphatically and repeatedly that we are prepared to share power with others on the express condition that it should be structured in such a way that no group may prejudice or dominate any of the others.

If, in our negotiations with Black leaders, we cannot succeed in persuading them to accept this principle, then power-sharing between us and them at the highest level of government cannot take place. That is a condition.

We on this side of the House simply do not believe in a transfer of power. Everyone must realise this, both the PFP and the CP and all Black leaders. We are prepared to share power fairly and equitably, but the oppression of minorities, like the oppression of majorities, must necessarily lead to frustration, rebellion and bloodshed. This is something which, just as in 1981, I simply cannot support and will not consent to. [Interjections.]

Therefore any power-sharing dispensation on which we shall negotiate with South Africa’s Black communities must eliminate this problem, just as the present constitution has eliminated it as far as humanly possible among the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. In the present Constitution each of these three communities enjoys the maximum possible self-determination in that each decides solely exclusively about its own affairs.

Even in regard to general affairs ethnic majority groups cannot outvote others, as can happen in the other constitutions I have mentioned. Even if we cannot achieve consensus in the standing committees by some other method, the standing select committees then vote separately. In this way, even though there are twice as many Whites in the House of Assembly as there are Coloureds and Indians in both their houses combined, the Whites cannot outvote or dominate them. That is why the problem of domination by numbers is eliminated as far as humanly possible. I shall concede at once that it is not an ideal system. It is not an unimprovable or perfect system, but …

It is fraud. That is what it is! [Interjections.]

Daan, why then are you still sitting in this Parliament? [Interjections.] Why do you not leave, then? Why are you cheating the Coloureds and the Asians? [Interjections.]

You are a coward!

That is why we also say in the new revised edition of our Programme of Principles that the ideal system will be one in which each people will govern itself as it prefers …

Order! A point of order is being raised.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Rissik said that the hon member for Innesdal was a coward. I merely ask whether that is in order.

Order! Did the hon member say that?

Mr Chairman, I said that the hon member for Innesdal was a coward.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it.

Daan, it does not matter what you say! [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House readily concede that the ideal dispensation is one in which each people can govern itself as it prefers, where possible within its own territory. That is why we on this side of the House are not opposed to kwaNdebele obtaining independence. We should like to see other self-governing states also accepting independence if and when they want to do so.

But surely that is not the total answer. There are ten million Black people living outside the National states. With the best will in the world I believe that it is impossible, and in addition that it is morally, politically, economically and otherwise indefensible, to try and move those people. If one cannot achieve one’s ideal and establish the perfect dispensation, one simply has to make another plan. It is pointless trying to govern a country as it ought to be and not as it is; unfortunately one has to govern it as it in fact is. For that reason I say that the ideal of the CPs, that we are not opposed to, is not achievable, however fervently they strive to achieve their ideal. That is why we must find a different dispensation, even if it has deficiencies.

Finally, I find it very odd that the CP is so opposed to the concept of power-sharing, because in a certain sense we have since the time of Dr Verwoerd been sharing power with Black people to a greater or lesser extent. This Parliament has handed over part of its power to each of the self-governing states, and therefore all the governments within the territory of the Republic of South Africa share power in a certain sense. The division of power to which the CP refers only comes into being when the Black national states have become independent and no longer form part of the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am not going to react to the speech by the hon member for Benoni because it is against my principles to react to speeches by people that have violated the truth to such an extent, as that hon member and his benchmate have already done with regard to the CP. It is a disgrace to the political history of this country.

I want to refer to the hon member for Turffontein. It is very interesting to listen to that hon member because he has a very interesting political past. We take no notice of his remarks, his warped truths, half truths and untruths about the CP and our standpoints. Nevertheless, it is necessary now and then to point out the truth to that hon member, and the truth is that his political past is such that he is renowned in this Parliament as the one and only political chameleon in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.] This is true. He is welcome to stand up this evening and tell us how many political parties he has already belonged to. [Interjections.] He is welcome to come along and tell us. [Interjections.] In modern language he is known as the Multiplex politician. He covers everything! [Interjections.]

I want to tell him that we have serious objections to the habit he has developed of referring to political leaders of the past in a derogatory way—as he referred again to Dr Malan tonight. [Interjections.] Nor did he confine himself to Dr Malan. Listen to what that hon member said in 1972 about the present State President. He said:

In other words, the then Minister of Defence, the present State President.

After all, that hon member did say this. There he is now, however, calmly sitting in that political party. [Interjections.] What did that hon member not say about his political mentor, his political father, Marais Steyn? Does the hon member want me to say this, too? I want to tell hon members that this is the kind of man that scratches around in the political sewers in order to injure other people with the dirt he finds there. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw the words “from the political sewers”.

I withdraw them.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order, and regarding the ruling you have just made, I should like to ask you a question with reference to Mr Speaker’s pronouncement in putting forward his viewpoint on the practice of ad hominem politics in this House. Do the hon member Mr Theunissen’s references to the hon member for Turffontein, as a man that constantly utters half-truths and untruths, not fall within the category of the Speaker’s ruling? [Interjections.] You see, Sir …

Order! The hon member has put his point of order. I shall watch the hon member Mr Theunissen carefully. He is going a little too far. The hon member may proceed.

In connection with the hon member for Turffontein, I have here a very interesting excerpt from Die Transvaler of 20 October 1973. Just listen to this. It reads as follows:

He therefore still had five years to remain a member. He said, however, that he was approaching 30 years. I quote further:

He said he had come to the point at which he felt he had served his political time. I think all of us decided long ago that his political time had already been served. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member that if the NP were soon to be torn asunder, there would not even be a home for him, because someone with such a politically colourful past would not fit in. I also want to assure him that he will be even less at home with us. We do not want him. The PFP does not want him either. [Interjections.] I quote further:

I am sick and tired of it, he said. He continued:

[Interjections.] How true this is! That hon member actually had a premonition because there he sits today, once again in the United Party. [Interjections.]

The economic consequences of the unrest situation which has been going on since September 1984 …

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Is it in order for the hon member to refer in such a derogatory way to my party as the United Party? [Interjections.]

Order! It is not unparliamentary to refer to it as the united party. The hon member Mr Theunissen may proceed.

The economic consequence of the unrest situation, which has raged in our country since September 1984, are alarming, distressing and disastrous for our country. The direct damage that has already been suffered is estimated at almost R138 million. Insurance claims have soared and amount to more than R65 million. The consumer boycotts have forced many business enterprises to close their doors. Stayaways have caused major losses in production. [Interjections.] Many of our people are unemployed as a result of the continued unrest. Then there is also the terrible suffering and loss of life caused by the unrest which is dragging on, and by the appalling violence day after day.

One can understand that South Africa is losing patience, that bitterness is increasing, and that in many quarters the Government is being blamed to a large extent because it is not using the full power of the State to put a stop to the defiance of State authority. There are many people today that say we can no longer be expected to stand and watch flames, smoke ruins and car wrecks increasingly turn our Black residential areas into dens of iniquity.

Surely it is also true that thousands of our young men in uniform are becoming more and more frustrated and discouraged because they are witness daily to extreme violence and disorder. Hon members will agree with me that the image of the White man as a protective figure of authority has been shattered for many peaceful Black people.

The crisis in which our country finds itself is proof that the South African Communist Party and its fellow-traveller front organisations are engaged in systematically making our whole country ungovernable and uncontrollable. The irony of the matter is that while Rome burns, the Bothas are fiddling! While our Black areas are being burnt down by the revolutionary mob, the Government is playing reform games. The Government, with all its reform plans, is playing into the hands of the revolutionaries. As a result of the implementation of its policy of powersharing, the Government is creating the worst degree of polarisation imaginable in the relationships between peoples. It is a Black against a Black, White against White, and soon it will be Black against White! There need be no doubt on that score. These conditions of polarisation, which have been caused by NP policy, are fatally destabilising our country in the political, economic and social spheres.

It is clear to all South Africans that would like to see a peaceful South Africa that the Government has lost control in many of our Black residential areas. This has again been contradicted here today by NP speakers, but after all it is the truth. On Sunday evening, on the programme Network one of the foremost NP propagandists, Mr Freek Robinson, pointed this out to the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. It cannot be disputed. The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning told us a little while ago that is is impossible to collect rent and/or specific amounts of interest in certain Black residential areas because the authorities no longer had any control over the situation there, and could not maintain a position of authority. The Government is not only losing control in that area; the Government is also losing its power base among the White voters. An article by Mr Stanley Uys appeared in the Cape Times last week in which he spelt out clearly that the NP was now finding that is was losing voters in this country at a rate of 7% per year. He drew attention to the fact that the NP lost 44% of its voters in the Springs byelection. The NP’s bacon was saved there by the English-speaking voters. [Interjections.]

By the Progs, man!

Yes, by the Progs.

And by the rain! [Interjections.]

These are truths that are being pointed out. It is interesting that Stanley Uys advances the usual argument, which we know well, namely the reason why the electorate is moving away from the NP. In the first place it is for ideological reasons. In the second place it is owing to two other factors: The deteriorating economic situation, and then the fear that Black violence will spill over into White residential areas.

I want to say today, however, that the statement that the Whites are panic-stricken is totally untrue. The Whites in South Africa are not panic-stricken. The Whites in this country are motivated to remain White. They are not terrified of the Black people. They are moving away from the NP because they have no faith in that party’s policy, because the NP is forsaking the White man in South Africa.

Mr Uys also makes an interesting comment on the deteriorating and disturbing economic conditions. This is of course 100% correct. He also points out in particular that the Government is spending less and less on Whites and more and more on Black people. To substantiate this, he quotes Professor Sampie Terreblanche:

The Government therefore finds itself in a dilemma today in that it is becoming a losing party on all fronts. The NP is like a rugby team that is losing, unfortunately like the Stellenbosch team. The image we have of it now is that of a losing party. Therefore our message to the NP is that it should not allow itself to be blackmailed and pushed around by the revolutionary elements in our country. It is the Tutus, the Boesaks, the Beyers Naudés and such people that today are blackmailing the NP and pushing it around, and the NP does not have the courage, the will and the power to clamp down on those people with the full power of the State.

Why does the NP allow the Press and the media—particularly on that TV programme Network—to create the opportunity, in a shocking way, for people to appear on our television screens and denounce the Whites in this country in the most terrible way? I am referring specifically to the programme in which the Rev Jesse Jackson was denied a visa by the Government, but was allowed by Network and the media to launch that vicious attack on the Whites. The message of horror was conveyed to every White house and to every other house in South Africa. Why does the Government allow programmes of that nature to be presented? We want to tell the NP to stop playing footsy-footsy with elements of this type in our country. We want to tell the Government to take action against those that want to talk to and collaborate with the ANC. It is now high time that the State used its full power to eradicate the revolutionaries totally. Our best advice to the Government, however, is to resign so that the people can rid themselves of this spineless Government.

Mr Chairman, one of the most regrettable consequences of the emergency of the CP is, in my view, the fact that the hon members now sitting in those benches have, with the change in their party allegiance also undergone a personality change.

The hon member Mr Theunissen, who has just resumed his seat, is a good old friend of mine, and I cannot imagine this hon member, five years ago, making such a reprehensible speech in this House as the one he made here this evening. [Interjections.]

What is reprehensible about it?

The hon member’s reprehensible attack on the hon member for Turffontein does not befit my friend, Louis Theunissen. [Interjections.] This evening the hon member Mr Theunissen certainly did not do himself a service. He bowed to the demands of his party, his personal dignity diminishing in the process. [Interjections.]

I am asking the hon member Mr Theunissen where he got the extract from Die Transvaler from which he so cheerfully quoted.

It does not matter.

And they are the people of integrity! Yet they do not hesitate to make use of any piece of gossip conveyed to them by their arch opponents, the PFP. [Interjections.] Then they stand up here and still adopt a sanctimonious tone of integrity and virtue! [Interjections.] What is political integrity if people are prepared to use any piece of gossip, conveyed to them by whomever, merely to get at their political opponents? [Interjections.] Oh no, the hon member Mr Theunissen has greatly disappointed me this evening. I say again that five years ago my good friend would not have been able to do something like that. I do not know what has since happened to him. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Theunissen also alleges that the Government is playing into the hands of the revolutionaries. In the course of my speech I shall prove to him that it is specifically he, and not the Government, who played into the hands of the revolutionaries this evening. The hon member Mr Theunissen, for example, spoke about the “crisis” in which the country found itself. That is specifically the theme on which I should like to exchange a few ideas this evening. [Interjections.]

It is a well-known fact—and no argument is necessary to demonstrate this—that the object of the RSA’s enemies abroad is to destabilise this country by way of boycotts, disinvestment and support for terrorists and subversive organisations. I think we are agreed about that. It is also true that on the local front the ANC and the UDF are, at the same time, attempting to make the RSA ungovernable by way of violence in the form of unrest and by way of intimidation and terrorism.

The strategy of both the foreign enemies and the local subversive organisations is aimed at specifically bringing about a crisis situation in South Africa. Their strategy aims firstly at creating a crisis in physical terms and, secondly, at creating a mental crisis or crisis psychosis. In the one hand there is an attempt, by way of physical violence, and by way of unrest and intimidation, to bring about a crisis situation in physical terms. On the other hand, by continual references to the existing crisis situation, there is an attempt to engender a crisis psychosis in the minds of people. That is, for example, why a so-called Education Crisis Committee was established, implying as that does that there is a crisis in Black education.

With all the seriousness at my command this evening, I emphatically want to deny the existence of a crisis situation in South Africa.

You are blind.

A crisis, by any definition, is a situation over which there is no control. [Interjections.] It is a situation in which there is no way out. It is a situation in which there is no hope.

That is a ridiculous definition.

The hon member for Koedoespoort is known for the fact that he does not have the foggiest idea of any concept. He can only go on saying something is poor and argue at that level. [Interjections.]

Of course there are great challenges in South Africa. Of course these are manifold problems. At the present moment, there it goes without saying, there are even great dangers. Danger, however, is an element of life that one cannot always avoid, because frequently danger is linked to those things to which one attaches the greatest value. Surely South Africans are not unfamiliar with challenges and with dangers. Surely the Republic of South Africa, as a State, did not come into being without some danger; on the contrary, South African history is an epic tale of the way in which people have solved problems, overcome challenges and braved dangers. Our State came into being amidst many perils.

Against the backdrop of our history, however, if one notes how people react to dangers these days, one fears for the future. Firstly there are the flight commando’s whose members seek a safe refuge for themselves abroad, only to suffer repeated disappointments and to discover that in the second half of the twentieth century there is hardly a safe refuge to be found anywhere. Secondly there are those who throw in the towel. They are the ones who raise the white flag in advance, who capitulate in the face of radical demands, and the representatives of this group are the hon members of the PFP sitting right opposite me. They say the Whites have no place in South Africa without the beneficence of the Black man.

Who says that?

The hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition has just asked me: “Who says that?” If he had listened, he would have known that this has repeatedly been the subject of debates we have conducted with the Official Opposition across the floor of this House. I am not going to dwell on that again now.

Which member says that?

I am telling hon members of the Official Opposition that nowhere in the world has this policy saved Whites from being trampled underfoot.

You have the policy all wrong!

Their policy of throwing in the towel is fatal; it is one of committing suicide in order to prevent one’s life being endangered.

Go and join the CP!

There is also a third group, one which neither hears nor sees any sign of a threat. They refuse to be convinced. They coddle themselves in the cocoon of their own self-satisfaction. No one can convince them that there are challenges that have to be met and that there are dangers threatening. I need only refer to the reaction the State President encountered in this House throughout the years when he warned about a total onslaught being waged against the Republic of South Africa. He was laughed out of court, derided, ridiculed in this House. Today it is suddenly the Government’s fault. When warnings were issued, there were those who were too blind to see or who would not see or hear so as to be convinced. That is the third kind of reaction to the challenges and dangers we find ourselves faced with.

There is also a fourth group, and this brings me to the hon members of the CP. They are the ones suffering from a crisis psychosis. They believe that we find ourselves in a crisis situation, as the hon member Mr Theunissen has just said. They believe that this crisis situation can only be dealt with by adopting crisis measures. The CP and the HNP are striking examples of people who are members of this group. Like their friends in the AWB, their approach is that in this crisis situation one should adopt crisis measures. They just want to run riot, regardless of the consequences of such conduct. They are the ones suffering from a crisis psychosis.

Unfortunately there is also a fifth group, the unthinking.

What is your standpoint?

They are the ones who continually proclaim the existence of a crisis.

What is your standpoint? Peace and love?

If the hon member would just keep quiet, I would tell him. [Interjections.]

I think you should control yourself!

Order!

There is a fifth group, that of the unthinking who constantly use terms which cannot but contribute towards creating and perpetuating a crisis psychosis amongst our people. I tell them they are playing into the hands of the Republic’s enemies in the shape of the ANC and the UDF. The last thing we can afford in present-day circumstances is specifically a crisis psychosis amongst our people, because that increases the conflict potential which is already too high in this country.

I therefore want to appeal to all hon members this evening—and I mean all hon members—to stop using crisis-orientated terms. I think we have the ability to meet the present challenges successfully, to solve the problems we are faced with successfully, to brave the dangers and victoriously survive. There are, however, two prerequisites.

The end is nigh.

The first is for us to have the necessary will to do so. Without that all our physical, technological and whatever capabilities will be of no use to us. The second is that we shall have to realise that we specifically cannot maintain or perpetuate those principles, norms and standards that we value in the Republic of South Africa by having contempt for, or doing violence to, those very norms and standards.

If we were to continue trying to preserve our security in this country specifically by holding in contempt, or doing violence to, those basic principles, norms and standards on which our civilisation rests, that is the surest way of destroying that civilisation. That is why I reiterate my appeal: Let us not make use of these crisis-orientated terms. Let us get away from the psychosis that there is a crisis. [Interjections.] Let us focus our attention on displaying the necessary will to solve our problems, on braving the dangers and on maintaining the principles, norms and standards we believe in.

Mr Chairman, thus far today we have had an interesting debate, a debate which has perhaps, more than ever before in this House, proved the inability of the CP and its alliance to handle the facts relating to South Africa. The best proof of this was probably the speech made here by the hon member for Waterberg today. At the beginning of his speech he referred to the basic rights people had. Then he said they regarded self-determination as the right people have to be governed by their own people, to have their own Parliament, Cabinet and Budget, in other words, to exist in isolation. What the hon member did not do, however, was in any way to account for the realities of South Africa.

The hon member Mr Theunissen has just said that the Government allows itself to be blackmailed and pushed around by people who make demands. I want to put it to those hon members that they allow themselves to be pushed around and blackmailed by the emotions of people who themselves do not have the facts. They do not put them on the right track. I shall, however, content myself with that.

Now I want to come to the theologians inside and outside this House. I have not counted so as to ascertain exactly how many farmers there are in this House, but I have counted the theologians, and I just want to say a few words about this. If there has been a new dimension in South African politics in recent times, it has been that of a virtually equally strong onslaught and involvement on the part of left-wing radicals by way of violence on the one hand and, on the other, an onslaught aimed at the existing order by theologians with Bibles under their arms.

If we were to delve a bit into South Africa’s history, we would find it to be a fairly gloomy one with meddlesome preachers in long vestments. From Dr Phillip who, in his day, complained endlessly to the London Missionary Society, to Bishop Tutu who today endlessly complains to the world, we in South Africa have consistently had to put up with theologians who believed that the steps to the pulpit were at the same time steps to political limelight and a kind of individual political responsibility.

Some theologians have at least had the honesty to relinquish the pulpit for Parliament. On our side of the House there are 4,5% of our members who are such theologians. We have a high regard for them, and in fact there are three theologians in Government circles today who responsibly meet their political obligations in South Africa in the right and proper place.

I am not trying to make out that church leaders and theologians should keep out of politics. Throughout the years the political pronouncements of the Church have not only been restricted to the left wing. The Afrikaans Churches, for example, have made very definite political pronouncements—in fact, a biblical basis for the policy of the governments of Dr Malan and Dr Verwoerd was specifically advocated by the Afrikaans Churches. On the basis of those very Scriptures, present-day reform is being supported and motivated by those same Churches in consequence of changed present-day circumstances. [Interjections.]

This change in perspective on the part of theologians should, in itself, be sufficient proof of the fact that the Church and theologians have an important role to play in regard to the responsibility they have to weigh up the prevailing political situation against the requirements of the Scriptures. I want to make the statement that politically South Africa would have been much the poorer without theologians such as my good friends, the hon member for Randfontein and the hon member for Brits, and also our other good friends in this House. [Interjections.] It would have been a pity if these aspects of the country’s policy had not constantly been put to the test by theologians. We would have been the poorer if the Scriptural grounds of our ethnic policy had not specifically been discussed by theologians.

There is a distinction to be drawn, however, between the approach of the kind of theologians I have just spoken about and the other kind of theologian who is a thorn in our flesh. There is a fundamental difference between the kind of theologian, for example, who published the Khairos document, the kind who propagate violent protest and resistance, who call for a day of prayer to bring down the Government and, on the other hand, the kind of theologian who associates himself with admonishment, reproof and Scriptural accountability. It is the right and duty of the Church to exort everyone, including politicians and the Government, to walk in the paths of righteousness, and it is the Church’s right to indicate the course it thinks politicians should adopt in bringing about reform. It is the duty of the Church, on the basis of the Scriptures, to continually weigh up the actions of the Government in power, and it is the Church’s responsibility, in a spirit of forgiveness, to admonish and to help carry the burden. It is unchristian, however, to regard anyone, including politicians, as so sinful that only getting rid of these people and this Government completely would satisfy the Almighty. It seems to me Bishop Tutu lost sight of this distinction in his recent appeal for sanctions. It was lost sight of when, last year, Bishop Tutu gave his support to a national day of prayer to bring down the Government.

One would probably, in a spirit of forgiveness and rapport, be able to tell the bishop that he was probably momentarily blinded to the truth by the lights of international television studios. In a less friendly spirit one would perhaps be able to say that as far as true Christianity is concerned the Bishop was temporarily blown off course by the winds of his own arrogant, selfish political utterances. In an even less friendly spirit one would be able to say that the Bishop’s offensive pursuit of esteem in South Africa was a morose attempt at entrenching his international statue here in the form of recognition he obviously does not have.

It would nevertheless not be fitting for us to pray for his downfall. We can merely pray that the scales will fall from his eyes so that he can understand that arrogance does not befit a man who holds himself to be a theologian and a Christian clergyman.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to say that it seems to me as if I am on the threshold of an historic occasion because, as I understand it, something of a record is being set up here this evening. This results from the fact that there is a party with a small number of representatives in this House, yet not a single one of them is present in the Chamber at the moment.

Are you now speaking of the Cabinet? [Interjections.]

I am referring to the hon members of the NRP. [Interjections.] I am now going to talk to those hon members. If they would only be patient.

The hon member for Caledon must forgive me if I do not respond to everything he said in his speech. I do want to follow up on what he said, however, in the sense that I do want to react to something touched upon in the House today by one of the theologians. I am referring to the hon member for Waterberg. Today he tried to use one swallow to make a summer of supposed Black support for their policy. He referred to Mr Credo Mutwa. Let me just say that in speaking of Mr Credo Mutwa, I do not merely draw my knowledge from books. Unlike the hon member for Waterberg, I have taken the trouble to visit him in his house in Soweto.

I have examined the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the unrest in Soweto and elsewhere from June 1976 to February 1977. In that report one finds something very interesting and that is that the hon member for Waterberg, who was then the responsible Deputy Minister, was warned by Mr Credo Mutwa, in April 1976, that there were problems in regard to the use of Afrikaans as the medium of instruction in those areas. There was no reaction to that.

Today hon members of the CP say they are going to negotiate with Blacks. In that very year the hon Leader of that party was in a position to do something about the matter. On Wednesday, 25 February 1976, the erstwhile Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana met the Tswana parents of school children in Soweto, for the second time within a week, to listen to their objections to the use of Afrikaans. Subsequently the Chief Minister held discussions with the then Deputy Minister and his secretary. The matter was raised, but what was the reaction? The matter was to have received attention, but the relevant school board had to contact the Department. It was also stated that for some time already that school board had been at loggerheads with the Department.

That is the way in which these people dealt with the matter.

What are you actually trying to say? [Interjections.]

When the hon member had an opportunity to listen to Mr Credo Mutwa, he did not do so, but then today he comes along usurping those ideas.

Firstly I do not want to cross swords with hon members of the CP now. I want to try to reach consensus with them on one or two matters. I should like to reach consensus with them on the rejection of certain methods in regard to radical present-day extremists in South Africa. I just want to deal with a brief list of matters common to radical groups. The first common denominator is the fact that numerous radical groups try to exploit religious feelings of South Africans and use them for their own ends. I think that the following quotations from a radical political document is a very good illustration of this point:

I do not think we ought to have any problems in reaching consensus about condemning such arguments justifying radical action.

A second common denominator indicative of radicalists in South Africa is their rejection of Parliament as a political instrument. In view of the short time available to me, I again quote to illustrate my point:

The radical organisation I am quoting here also declares its policy to be: “to move away from the parliamentary system to implement a system of centralised authority”. In condemning this we ought not to have much of a problem in reaching consensus either.

The third common denominator, relating to radicals, is their aversion to capitalism and their desire for nationalisation. Again I quote as an illustration:

On this point it would be a little more difficult to reach consensus with hon members of the CP, but perhaps it is possible.

One would be able to draw up a long list of these common denominators, but I want to content myself with one final example. I am referring to the regular incidence of racist element in radicalism. Again I quote to illustrate the point:

I wonder whether we could reach consensus with one another about this. Does the CP see its way clear to condemning this kind of racism?

The first three illustrative quotations I made use of could very easily have come from the ranks of leftist radicals, whilst the origins of the latter are unmistakeable. The fact of the matter is, however, that all four passages I have quoted come from the documents of the CPs partner and bedfellow, the AWB. [Interjections.] The first three were merely translated from the original Afrikaans into English. [Interjections.]

Something very interesting took place in this House this evening, and I now want to link up with the hon member for Turffontein. The hon member Mr Theunissen tried to react, but what was interesting, was his attempt to attack the hon member for Turffontein personally. He attacked him for having changed his party affiliation. What, however, did the hon member Mr Theunissen do? [Interjections.] There is only one difference between them: The hon member for Turffontein did return to this House under another banner, but with the backing of his voters. He fought an election, even if it was under another banner. What, however, did the hon member Mr Theunissen do? The majority of his voters are sitting in this House. [Interjections.] What do they say about that? The aspect of this which is of real interest is that the CP, having been challenged here this evening to react to their standpoints in regard to the AWB, have failed to do so. The hon member Mr Theunissen did not reply to a single argument. [Interjections.] Why not? It is because the hon leader of the CP complained earlier today that he was being lumped with the AWB merely because he spoke to them. [Interjections.] What, however, are the facts? Not only does the CP associate itself with the AWB and its sentiments, but there are also direct ties between the two. In fact, here we are probably dealing with a hidden strategy giving one to believe that one is dealing here with two different organisation, whilst in fact the CP and the AWB are merely two sides of the same coin. How else does one explain the fact that people in numerous towns are key office-bearers of both organisations? Thus the CP chairman in Pietersburg is one of the AWB’s five “burger-brandwagte”, acting as chairman at the AWB’s public meetings. [Interjections.]

What is even more important is the fact that this overlapping also takes place in regard to paid staff. Thus the CP’s regional organiser in the Eastern Transvaal is an acknowledged and active member of the AWB. Final proof of the fact that the CP and the AWB are one and the same movement revolves round the involvement of a leading national figure in the CP in investiture ceremonies of so-called AWB “stormvalke”. [Interjections.] On occasions that I have knowledge of, this national leader of the CP was present, with Mr Eugene Terre’blanche, at investiture ceremonies when young men were asked whether they were “prepared to take up arms against the liberal Government.” Those are the CP’s bedfellows. That is the same national leader of the CP who recently appeared on the platform at an AWB rally and challengingly declared: “If the Press wants to know why I am here, it is because I have come back to my people.” The question is whether Dr Connie Mulder was present there as a CP representative or because he was, in any case, a fullfledged member of the AWB. Is the CP and its leadership prepared to take steps against Dr Connie Mulder and others who play dual roles? If they are not prepared to do so, there is only one question that is still unanswered about the present relationship between the CP and the AWB: “Is the CP the parliamentary wing of the AWB, or is the AWB the military wing of the CP?” [Interjections.]

I just want to touch upon a final matter. The CP alleged there were Coloureds who supported their policy. They said they were going to negotiate with the Coloureds about a homeland. What do the CP people say about this? I want to quote what a member of the CP, Mr Eugene Terre’blanche, said about this:

That is what Mr Terre’blanche said. [Interjections.] They just want to take and are prepared to make use of others as if there supposedly are people who supported their policy. When they could use advice, however, they do not do so.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Springs is one of the “new Nats”. [Interjections.]

You are a leo, are you not!

He is one of the “new Nats” who is very unhappy about the direction the State President is taking. He is one of the “new Nats” who wants to get rid of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

He is Wimpie de Klerk’s nephew!

You are an old Nat!

Order!

He is one of the “new Nats” who would like to negotiate and apparently wants to display a new initiative. [Interjections.] One hope that perhaps one would get an indication tonight from these “new Nats” and others of the direction in which they want to move, and an indication that they are truly frustrated. The only thing we have heard from these “new Nats”, however, is a defensive speech. The majority of the NP members defended themselves against the CP tonight. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Finance knows that there is deep anxiety among the businessmen in this country about the direction the NP is taking, and the fact that there is no leadership in the party.

You are absurd, man!

The hon the Minister says I am absurd. One of his supporters, Dr Fred du Plessis, is asking for a new centristic government.

Whose supporter is he?

Naturally he was an NP supporter—the hon the Minister knows that—but now he is asking for a new centristic Government, because he has given up hope as far as the hon the Minister of Finance and the Government are concerned. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is one of his personal friends.

That is not true!

In this kind of climate in which well-known Government supporters have given up hope, one would have hoped that perhaps one would get a new direction and new ideas from the Government concerning where they are moving to. [Interjections.]

Order! May I ask the hon members to complete their dialogue first, please?

He is one of Fred du Plessis’ friends. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Durban Central may proceed.

I do not know whether or not the hon the Minister is one of Dr Fred du Plessis’ friends. If he is, it is evern worse than I thought, for in that case Dr Fred du Plessis has also lost confidence in the hon the Minister and his Cabinet’s ability to manage this country. He is definitely one of the people who is now asking for a new composition, a new dispensation and a new centristic Government. [Interjections.]

Why did we not hear tonight from those people who can perhaps indicate a new direction? One of the few who possibly raised a few new ideas is the hon member for Innesdal. In his opinion, birds of a feather will always flock together. I agree with him.

Like you and the ANC?

I say birds of a feather flock together. I agree with the ANC that we need a dispensation in which every South African has a legitimate share in the Government. I agree with them on that point. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Innesdal says birds of a feather flock together, and asks why laws are necessary to force people to mix with their own kind. I agree with him. It is a direction one must investigate, but there were no other new noises from people who tried to make inquiries into that new direction. He also says that as far as he is concerned he is prepared to make dramatic adjustments to the Group Areas Act. That is necessary, but not one of the other NP members tried to take a new direction to see where changes should be made. He was the only one.

Another “new Nat”, the hon member for Stellenbosch, asked in the “new Nat” tradition for the various parties, instead of fighting about their ideal policy, perhaps rather to identify points of contact and to discuss how one could solve the problems. That is also Fred du Plessis’ idea. At least this is one of the “new Nats” who is trying to seek solutions. The rest of the “new Nats” have simply sung the old NP tune: Defence against the CP!

One knows what the CP wants. They are going to shoot and use the sjambok. They are already warning that they are going to shoot. “We are not going to tolerate it,” they say. The only conclusion one can draw is that they are going to shoot, and one knows where they stand.

The NP could not table an alternative today or in the past few months, and that is why they are on the defensive. A typical example is the hon member for Mossel Bay who spoke for 12 minutes about various categories found in White South African politics. He spoke about the … [Interjections.] I am going to come to that now; it was an interesting word. Here it is, he spoke of the “crisis psychosis”. He included the CP and the HNP, but he should include himself too, because in the 12 minutes in which he spoke, he did not give a single indication of where he stands, where his party stands or what their solution is. Nor did he say what their objective was. He did not dwell on that for even one moment. He spoke bout the problems. The solution he suggests is the typical “mother love” solution. He says we must have the will to do so. Very well, we all agree with him. Secondly he said we must realise that principles and norms must be maintained. We all want to try to maintain those norms if possible. Where is the NP’s alternative, however? We have heard nothing of that kind from his side. He, a senior NP member, was just another speaker who had no alternative to offer.

The hon member for Randfontein, who perhaps is not a “new Nat”, is quite convinced that Soviet expansionism is to blame for the unrest situation in the country. [Interjections.] At the same time he does admit that the young schoolchildren who are at the forefront of the unrest are children without fathers. That is an area in which he knows something. He says that is the result of the fact that influx control is applied and that families cannot live together.

In my opinion these two arguments are inconsistent. The fact that a young schoolboy is at the forefront of the group, is a direct result of a government policy supported by the hon member and by his predecessors, and that is the direct cause of the unrest we are experiencing at present. These are the facts. Soviet expansionism is not responsible, although naturally it is in the interests of the Communist Party to encourage it. One must admit this. The cause of the unrest and of the political and education crisis, however, is the policy supported by that hon member himself, viz the policy which ensures that there are thousands of children in the Black residential areas who have no parents, that there are thousands of people who cannot live together as families and that there are thousands of unemployed people. It is that hon member’s policy which is responsible for this, and not Soviet expansionism. To lay the blame on Soviet expansionism is an easy and cheap way of evading the problem. The problem lies in that party and their policy itself. There are people in that party who are trying to rectify it, but they are still too afraid to do so openly. They are making more of an effort to defend themselves against the CP than they are to move forward. That hon member is also one of those people. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is of the opinion that if his policy were applied tomorrow, the revolutionary onslaught on South Africa would diminish?

I am convinced that the revolutionary onslaught will diminish; I am not convinced that it will stop completely.

Time after time the statement has been made that the PFP does not recognise groups and is not prepared to grant some or other form of protection to minority groups. The hon member for Benoni also said again here tonight that we describe any policy which recognises or tries to protect minority groups, as apartheid. That is not true. If he looks at our policy document, he will see that in respect of the concept of minority groups—whether it is based on ethnicity or political or religious formation does not matter—we are of the opinion that such groups will come about by themselves. As the hon member for Innesdal also said: Birds of a feather flock together. We say minority groups should have the freedom to find themselves and that they should not be forced by the Government to do so. Not before the Government can come to the realisation that it cannot force people to belong to groups, will we get away from the unrest situation and find any solution to our problems.

Mr Chairman, I have been sitting and listening in absolute amazement to that hon member. He made no speech whatsoever. He simply repeated what certain NP members had said and that, of course, has meaning and merit. [Interjections.]

It was for another reason, too, that I listened to him with absolute amazement. That hon member is the so-called national chairman of that party, but he only rises at this late stage of the evening. At what time of the evening do the hon members let their national chairman speak? That hon member said nothing this evening except to repeat what we had said, and if his own party thinks so much of him that they give him the floor at this time of the evening to say nothing then I shall not say anything more about him either! [Interjections.]

I am very keen to debate with hon members about the politics of today because the present time, 1986, is extremely important; the future is extremely important. The past, too, is of course important because one can learn from the past and build one’s future on it. [Interjections.] Gen Hertzog, Dr Malan, Adv Strijdom—one could carry on with this list—Gen Smuts, Jan van Riebeeck and Noah were all very good leaders in their time, and I say that with respect. [Interjections.] However those leaders are unfortunately dead. The fact of the matter is that my children and I, we and our children are alive today.

What is more, the Rev Hendrickse, Mr Rajbansi and Dr Boesak and Bishop Tutu are alive today. That is the reality of today. That is why, standing here this evening, shortly before the adjournment of the House, I undertake that for the rest of this session, where and when I have the opportunity to make a speech, I shall discuss the politics of 1986 and the future, bluntly and honestly and as comprehensively as possible. [Interjections.]

In the light of this promise I have made, hon members will probably permit me to take them on a very brief tour through history. I have already said that history, too, is important. Those hon members make certain allegations to the effect that they stand by the policy of Malan, Strijdom and Verwoerd. The hon member for Sasolburg goes so far as to call it an age-old policy. That hon member is a lawyer (regsgeleerde), although I think that in fact he is a captive of the law (regsbeleërde), because of the way ideas of that kind must surely fence in his brain.

Let us take a brief tour and consider the policy of Dr Malan and Dr Verwoerd. Those gentlemen were advocates of change and drastic change of policy to adapt to the times and the new circumstances, and what is more, each of them said so. Let us now undertake that tour. I shall quote from Hansard. We can then come back and speak about the future.

I want to start with Dr Malan, the man whose policy the hon member for Sasolburg and his hijacked fellow-travellers say they support. I should like to quote Dr Malan, and I also have before me the booklet Brandpunte nr 5: Die Kaapse stemregverteen-woordiging vir Swart en Bruin, 1936, compiled by Dr Joubert. I am going to quote from Dr Malan’s speech on the Bill on the franchise for women (Hansard: Assembly, 2 March 1928). It is in the Committee Stage and it is being requested that the word “White” be incorporated in the franchise.

How did Stoffie vote?

Dr Malan, then Minister of the Interior, said that he was in some difficulty, because he said that if one did not insert the word “White” then that included Black women as well, and so on. However, he said that if one inserted the word “White”, one would be excluding Coloured and Malay women, something he did not want to do. Dr Malan then went on to say: (Hansard: Assembly, 2 March 1928, col 1650):

He then goes on to state the problem as I have explained it to hon members, and replies further (col 1650):

Do you know how Dr Malan …

I know everything about Dr Malan. When the hon member was still a United Party supporter I knew Dr Malan.

I thought you were speaking about that woman who looked after you.

Hon members will recall that after Gen Hertzog came up with his first Bill, it was withdrawn. On 19 February 1936, eight years after 1928, Dr Malan came up with his dramatic proposal that the Coloureds should be placed on a separate voters’ roll. This was dramatically and diametrically opposed to what he had said eight years previously. He was then attacked by Mr Alexander, the MP for Cape Town (Hanover Street).

In accordance with Standing Order No 19, the House adjourned at 22h30.