Order! Before I put the question, I want to inform hon members that I intend to apply Rules 107 and 108 of the Standing Orders strictly, not only in this debate, but also in future debates.

Mr Chairman, at the outset of the discussion of this Vote I consider it my duty to furnish hon members with certain information concerning a number of matters. I am of the opinion that this can facilitate the debate and also make it more meaningful.

†Mr Chairman, recent news events have been dominated by increasing tension between the United States of America and Libya in connection with the latter’s involvement in several international terror incidents in which innocent civilians have been killed. Libya is accused of being the mastermind behind an international network of terror which acts mainly against Western interests and Western countries. The Gaddafi government, in the furthering of terrorism, has left a trail of blood during the past decade. Threats and acts of terrorism form the basis of Libya’s foreign policy. So it is no wonder that Gaddafi has been called “the mad dog of the Middle East” by the President of the USA, Mr Reagan.

Gaddafi’s close co-operation with the Palestine Liberation Organisation—or the PLO as it is usually called—is clear, for example, from his accommodation of the particularly extreme PLO faction, led by Abu Nidal, which is being held responsible for the recent shooting incidents at international airports in Italy and Austria. Libyan passports have been supplied, among other things, to terrorists of this faction. Gaddafi has on several occasions expressed himself in favour of revolutionary violence in South Africa and South West Africa. In December 1985 he even declared that the liberation struggle in Southern Africa would be increased and that the only negotiations with, as he called it, the “racists of Pretoria” would take place on the field of battle.

For those who might wonder about them, these claims by Gaddafi have not simply been created out of thin air; he has been acting as host to South African terrorists for several years now. The PAC and other expatriate Black power elements received military training in Libya as far back as the 1970s. Since the Soweto riots of 1976, an increasing number of South African expatriates, who joined the PAC and other terrorist groups, have been accommodated and trained by Libya.

The recent arrest of PAC terrorists in South Africa, who have been trained in Libya, again focused attention on the role played by Libya in international terrorism regarding South Africa. South African missions, other South African bodies, represented abroad and foreign companies with interests in South Africa have during the past year increasingly become targets for terrorist acts by foreign terrorist groups that can be linked with Libya.

The ANC and PAC together with the Irish Republican Army and the PLO took part in a conference in Tripoli during March 1986 organised by the so-called World Centre for Struggle against Imperialism, Zionism and Racism. As a result of this conference the international news magazine Time recently reported that Gaddafi had established about 20 terrorist training camps in Libya where 7 000 terrorists of various nationalities were receiving training in the basic principles of guerrilla warfare. On this occasion two ANC leaders, Thabo Mbcki and Johnny Makatini paid a visit to the terrorist training base. This base in the north western Gharyan area in Libya where ANC members are trained, is called Sabaha. During this week another clandestine conference is to be held in Tripoli by the ANC, Swapo, the PAC and the PLO with the view “to making 1986 the decisive year in the defeat of Pretoria”.

It was recently reported in the media that a group of Libyans had arrived in Athens with South African passports and attempted to board a flight to Harare. The true facts are the following: The people concerned were twelve RSA citizens, nine from the Western Cape, one from Guguletu, one from East London and one from Johannesburg. Nine passports were lawfully issued in Cape Town and three persons were in possession of Tanzanian, Botswanan and Zimbabwean travel documents. This fact confirms the important role the security services have to fulfil in the RSA in monitoring the movements of those with revolutionary aims who leave the country under false pretences.

We have a large Muslim community which like all other religious denominations, enjoys complete freedom of religion in South Africa. Furthermore, South African Muslims are respected citizens of this country. However, a small group has emerged within this community which, under the influence of Libya and Iran and with funding from those quarters, has committed itself with the ANC and the PAC, to terror and violence. The Athens group consisted largely of members of this faction while the rest of that group had ANC and/or PAC connections.

These people left the RSA a while ago and travelled to Libya after undergoing basic training in certain neighbouring states. They received specialist training in Libya and were organised into so-called “hit squads” together with other expatriates from the Republic of South Africa.

The Athens group is only one of the hit squads and had orders to return to Harare where they were to receive further instructions and equipment. I have in my possession documentary evidence which confirms most of these particulars. I am prepared to arrange for opposition leaders to have access to these documents should they so wish.

This intelligence shows that South African terrorist groups will adopt the Gaddafi— PLO style of terrorism inside the Republic of South Africa as well as abroad, and will sometimes operate in conjunction with or under the auspices of international terrorist groups. I have already issued instructions in this regard, and our security and intelligence services are taking the necessary countermeasures as far as possible.

The co-operation between the ANC and other international terrorist organisations is, above all, characterised by their mutual display of solidarity, co-ordination of propaganda against the West and joint action in international and other forums. ANC and PAC delegates often confer with PLO leaders, inter alia in neighbouring states. The ANC president, Oliver Tambo, visited Lebanon as far back as October 1980 at the invitation of the PLO, and during this visit liasion and closer co-operation between the two organisations were among the points discussed.

It is also known that close co-operation exists between the ANC and the PLO representatives in Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Zambia.

Virtually every week the PAC contacts the PLO mission in Zimbabwe, where the PLO acts as a transmission station in the PAC communications network. The same services are rendered by the PLO in other countries. The PLO representatives in Zimbabwe, Ali Halimeh, justifies his organisation’s co-operation with South African terrorist groups as follows, and I quote:

It is therefore clear that wider international aims are being pursued in conjunction with South African and other terrorist organisations, and that Libya, the PLO and the USSR play a leading role in this regard.

A well-known American expert on international terrorism, Prof Yonah Alexander, explains these broader interests as follows in one of his authoritative works in this regard:

It is against this background that a terrorist alliance under the auspices of the South African Communist Party-manipulated ANC acts as an anti-Western change agent within the Southern African context. The ideological and material base of this alliance is situated in communist states.

During the ANC’s conference of June 1985 held in Zambia, it was confirmed in no uncertain fashion that the so-called socialist states are the natural allies of the ANC, and that when imperialism has tried to roll back the advance of socialism, they say: “We have made it clear that our interests and those of imperialism can never coincide and we have therefore come out in support of our socialist allies”.

The South African Communist Party and the African National Congress have, in other words, succeeded over the years in reconciling the terrorist campaign in South Africa with so-called world-wide fight against imperialism and the aims of the communist world order. The South African Communist Party’s control of the ANC is clearly reflected in the following statement made during its sixth congress at the end of 1984. They said the following:

That is the ANC.

With the aid of the South African Communist Party the ANC today receives specialised political, military and intelligence training in countries such as the USSR and the German Democratic Republic. The ANC also depends mainly on communist states for the supply of arms, ammunition, explosives and other military equipment, as well as logistic and communications support. The Secretary General of the ANC, Alfred Nzo, who is also a member of the South African Communist Party, visits Moscow regularly. He addressed the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union a few weeks ago, he also received the Order of the Friendship of the People in Moscow in 1985.

Apart from this, Nzo is one of the vice-presidents of the influential Communist Front Organisation the World Peace Council, which is constantly turning out anti-Western propaganda under the pretext of peace campaigns.

The communist grip on the African National Congress, however, extends beyond the political and ideological influence of the South African Communist Party. The majority of the members of the ANC executive committee are registered members and senior leaders of the South African Communist Party. In practice, the SACP controls the ANC’s executive departments and clandestine operational and intelligence structures which plan and co-ordinate the revolutionary campaign against the Republic of South Africa.

Notwithstanding its dominant influence in the African National Congress, the South African Communist Party for practical reasons, endeavours to maintain and to strengthen the ANC as the vanguard in the revolutionary struggle. In this regard, Joe Slovo, SACP chairman and member of the ANC executive committee, stated during the MPLA congress in Luanda during December 1985 that the struggle could only be won under the banner of the ANC. The reason for such an approach by the South African Communist Party is on the one hand linked to concealing its true aims. On the other hand, it is afforded the advantage of establishing itself within a broad mass movement or so-called liberation front while it in the meantime secretly continues to improve and develop its own party structures.

The communists are past masters of deceit. The deceitful plans of the SACP are apparent from ANC conversations conducted with internal safari-goers to Lusaka. Dialogue is being encouraged with the object of enhancing the image of the ANC while undermining the power base of the Government in South Africa. However, the South African Communist Party is afraid that the ANC may be forced to forswear the use of violence or to sever its alliance with the South African Communist Party. In this respect Brian Bunting, an avowed communist, remarked in 1985, inter alia with reference to the condition I laid down, ie that violence be forsworn:

That was his remark in response to the offer I made.

I am well acquainted with the fact that those exploiters are converging on South Africa in increasing numbers and a variety of guises with the purpose of furthering their own interests these bodies are thoroughly aware of the fact that there are opinion-makers in the Republic of South Africa who, in all sincerity, are trying to find peaceful solutions but who might be susceptible to the idea that the problems facing South Africa cannot be solved without the help of mediators. Such opinion-makers are not always in a position to establish the bona fides of outsiders and could inadvertently become involved in initiatives of which they can determine neither the origins nor the motives.

I want to re-emphasise that South Africans must themselves seek and find the solutions to their particular problems. There is no doubt that we—all of us—are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Moreover, can there be anyone who could still doubt the will and the determination on the part of the Government to lay new foundations for building a peaceful and prosperous South Africa?

Therefore I make this appeal to the rest of the world: Since we are ourselves occupied with these formidable domestic affairs to which you have no answers, do please refrain from interfering, whether it be by way of official organs or by espionage, cover organisations, mediators or subtle brainwashing. We cannot allow South Africa to become a laboratory and our peoples the guinea pigs used, inter alia, by foreign academics for putting their own theories to the test. Such foreigners are in the fortunate position that they do not have to bear the consequences of their own abortive experiments.

I should also like to address a word of warning to South Africans who, out of curiosity or to obtain more information, hold talks with the ANC because such information, according to them, is not freely available in South Africa, and because the Government, for reasons that suit itself, overemphasises the influence of the SACP in the ANC. I should like to ask these people if they, in the process, became much wiser and if they obtained satisfactory answers to questions, such as who in the ANC are communists and what hold the SACP actually has on the ANC. I can put it plainly that the Government has never said that all ANC members are communists. As a matter of fact, it is clear that there are confirmed Black nationalists within the ANC who are not aware that they are being manipulated by hardened communists.

The Government—by virtue of carefully evaluated intelligence—and not by virtue of propaganda reasons—is perhaps in a better position than the ANC itself to determine what the influence of the SA Communist Party is in that organisation. It is known that the SA Communist Party was strongly represented in all the ANC delegations that held talks with the various parties from the Republic of South Africa. Even within the ranks of the ANC the SA Communist Party membership is not completely known.

I should like to tell all people, interested parties, and even the Western governments who have held talks with the ANC, that the African National Congress is only using such rapprochement to promote its own legitimacy in South Africa and abroad. It is not interested in negotiations and in a settlement. It regards itself as the only alternative government for South Africa. Its purpose is to seize power in South Africa at any cost. The ANC is mindful that the rapprochement of influential groups within the country, such as the businessmen and PFP, as well as the rapprochement by Western governments and institutions must not prevent it from obtaining its goal of a takeover of power. It sees attempts at holding talks and at finding a political settlement as a counter-revolutionary offensive that should be counteracted at all costs. In this regard Oliver Tambo stated the following in the ANC monthly publication, Sechaba, of February 1986:

It is no wonder that a person such as Mr Gavin Relly of Anglo American, whose insight I respect, was somewhat disillusioned after the talks between the businessmen and the ANC. His considered opinion that the ANC need not be an essential factor in an internationally acceptable settlement is particularly significant. As was reported in the Press, Mr Relly stated:

In the last instance, I also want to convey a message to South African churchmen in general who, owing to their sense of justice and their striving for peace and reconciliation, are extremely vulnerable, especially when foreign forces hide themselves behind their religious masks. In this regard there are several lessons we can learn from the situation in Vietnam and also from other similar situations where communist-dominated movements eventually seized power.

I wish to share the following information with hon members because I think it is good advice for all South Africans who love our country. I recently received an interesting letter from two Vietnamese refugees in the USA which was addressed, care of me, to a South African Bishop. In the letter the Bishop’s attention is drawn to the experiences of a Catholic priest, the Rev Tran Huu Thanh, who organised an anti-government movement in South Vietnam in 1973 in an attempt to bring about the necessary reforms. In order to reach these goals he helped to organise the masses into protest campaigns and fired a feeling of hatred among members of the defence force and the government service. These campaigns led indirectly to the fall of the government of that time and hastened the final onslaught of the communists. Concerning the compensation that this priest in Vietnam and his fellow workers received from the communists the following answer was given to the Bishop by these two correspondents in the United States:

Moreover, it was proposed that since the South African government allows the Bishop to travel around freely abroad, he should undertake a journey to Vietnam and should ask the Vietnamese government whether he could have a confidential talk with Tran Hau Thanh. The letter ends with the following words:

This is a very serious message and a message that I hope all South Africans will take note of.

South Africa is engaged in an urgent and comprehensive process of reform. However, negotiations will not be conducted with the SA Communist Party, international or national terrorist groups or other fanatics. Just like the rest of the free world South Africa will see to it that it is not deprived of freedom and civilised values by revolutionary violence.

On various occasions—I want to stress what I have to say now—I have pointed out that the South African subcontinent is increasingly becoming the focal point for East-West involvement and rivalry. During President Machel’s recent visit to Moscow the Soviet leader, Mr Gorbachev, indicated according to Pravda that the Soviet Union was willing to make a constructive contribution to the solving of the problems of Southern Africa. There is much to do in Southern Africa and any contribution in terms of economic aid and upliftment and development in the region should be welcomed. However, should the USSR under the leadership of Mr Gorbachev continue to exploit Southern Africa as an area for the export of weapons and revolution, its relevance in the search for peaceful solutions will further diminish.

*I thought I ought to furnish this House with this information to bring it into a frame of mind on matters on which we can concur because we have so much to protect in our country.

There is an erroneous point of departure in some quarters in South Africa that reform affects only constitutional aspects.

I and those who support me made a choice to help bring about constitutional, social and economic reform. This choice was not made to oblige the outside world. Too frequently a transparent meddlesomeness in regard to our country is displayed in foreign quarters arising out of an opportunistic handling of their own internal problems.

I frequently conduct interviews with people from abroad, and by now I have learnt to ask them certain questions. Eventually it becomes apparent that most of them are concerned about us because they are concerned about their own internal position.

Nor am I advocating reform because perpetrators of violence demand this from time to time by means of arson, murder and hysterical funerals under communist flags. In other words, we are not being stampeded into the reform process because we fear fanatics and disloyal elements. Such wild demands against us are the signs of the tyranny which certain terrorist cliques envisage for our country.

I have found, particularly during the past year, that no one harbours more bitterness and intolerance than a leftist radical. It is inculcated in them by their masters, to whom I have just referred, to hate and to carry the message of hatred into peace-loving communities, and to uproot those communities, to disrupt them and sometimes even to drag them to death and destruction.

They are not in the least interested in the real needs of the Republic of South Africa’s population. Like locusts they want to devour what has been built up over centuries in the Republic of South Africa, and when they are finished devouring, we are left with the barren stalks and they have had their own way. The masses are exploited by them, merely to satisfy a clique’s lust for power.

Polenski, who is now in America, was at first a member of the inner circles of the communist regime in Russia, and about a year ago his famous book appeared in which he clearly illustrated the powerful grip which this power-hungry clique had on the national life of Russia.

We know that that system has been transplanted to many countries, also in Africa, but that the masses have not benefited from it. The masses have been exploited and abused, but the desire for power of that clique has been satisfied by their conduct under the cloak of serving the interests of the masses.

The freedom of religion and worship, the freedom of movement, the independence of the judiciary and the promotion of private enterprise will be ground into the dust under such a power clique, as has happened elsewhere in such states, not only on the Continent of Africa, but on other continents as well.

The media which for the sake of sensational news in our time adopt a cold and stony attitude towards us when we oppose these powers, are frequently fellow-travellers towards the precipice until it is too late. Then the freedom which they advocate so vociferously will merely be a memory to them, as it was to that Vietnamese priest.

Today, as in the past, conflicting standpoints on the constitutional accommodation of our diversity of minorities still exist. We shall probably observe this during the present debate, and other debates.

One extreme standpoint means the total negation of our country’s group diversity, and consequently the integration of everyone into what purports to be a single community. This implies one man, one vote in a state in which winner takes all. In point of fact this does the principle of one man, one vote an injustice, because it claims everything for itself, while the principle of one man, one vote can also be applied in other ways.

In practice Africa has taught us that it means the dictatorship of the strongest Black groups. In the case of the Republic of South Africa this will lead to greater strife and bloodshed than is at present being experienced. Such a system cannot work in South Africa. Such a system will cause the greatest bloodbath this country has ever seen.

Recently a Black leader told me after I had paid them a visit:

A disinvestment and boycott campaign is being waged against us from various quarters because of the system in our country, or so it is claimed. I am afraid, however, that that disinvestment campaign is sometimes born in circles where those people have far more to hide concerning their own internal problems than South Africa, in which they are purportedly interested.

Ask the investors of the world, when they come here, whether they are prepared to invest the money which they want to withdraw from this country in these neighbouring states of ours that are burdened by a one party system and by dictatorships.

Last week I asked people this question. I put it to them that they claimed they were being forced to withdraw from South Africa. I asked them to do me a favour. I said that if it would satisfy them, they should withdraw their money from this country, but then they should then invest it in Lesotho, Mozambique, Zambia or Zimbabwe. Their reply to that was no, they were not going to invest their money in those countries. When I asked them why not, they said their money was not safe there. I then asked them why they wanted to withdraw their money from this country where it was safe, and I am still waiting for a reply.

There are at least 1,2 million foreign people from neighbouring states in the RSA. The Government is engaged in a process of trying to send these people back across the borders to their own states, but it is a tough job. They do not want to return. They walk through the Kruger National Park. They brave wild animals. A nurse in one of these states told me they did not know what to do with these people. They are so weak and helpless that it verges on insanity that they are not in bed. Yet they walk through the bush to South Africa to get away from hunger and the misery of dictatorships and one-party states under communist control.

There is great unemployment in the RSA at present, and we are struggling with this problem. A great deal can be done to alleviate this unemployment if the investors of the Western world would only invest in our neighbouring states so that they can take care of their own unemployed. It will then, to a great extent, be possible to alleviate our own unemployment problem into a manageable situation.

The outside world, which take such a great interest in us, can help us by adopting a positive attitude to investment in neighbouring states. I have asked them on more than one occasion to give me the name of only one of these states which they want as an example of what I should create in South Africa. They fail to do so and refuse to give me an answer, but the pressure continues. The persecution continues, in spite of the fact that they know that South Africa is searching for solutions to its unique problems and that we have to find these solutions in South Africa, and not elsewhere. But when I hold these conversations with people I am constantly being disappointed.

A second point of departure in this country entails the absolutisation of groups, with the insistence upon total geographic separation of every identifiable group in South Africa. It may be idealistic—I do not wish to deny it—but it is impractical because it does not take economic realities and interdependence into account.

For years I myself adopted a standpoint that I did not want to allow the Western Cape to be inundated by Black workers. I did not do so because I hated these people, but because I wanted to protect the Western Cape against the social evils and the social and economic problems it now has to contend with.

However, I lost against reality. I lost because the economic interests of people made it impossible. Let us be honest. Let us not run away and chase after snowflakes. The facts are that the farmers wanted those workers for their dairy farms. The industries wanted those workers, and in spite of control measures that were introduced, the policy did not succeed because economic realities forced the people to resist it. I make no apology for having tried, but I make no apology either for having perceived the realities.

A third extreme standpoint stands for White domination over all the other minority groups. This is being openly advocated today in certain circles. Such a standpoint is in conflict with the demands of justice, and can only be implemented through violence and continual oppression and eventual disaster. Therefore that is not a way in which the happiness of this country can be sought.

There is also in my opinion a reasonable course by means of which one can also pursue justice. This is the course which I want to call co-operative co-existence. We must accept that peoples in and around our country have the right to self-determination and independence. This is the first principle of that right.

We developed the early Union of South Africa of 1910 along a constitutional and evolutionary course from crown colony status to full constitutional independence. This is also a fact of history, and Britain itself accepted it. Sometimes remorsefully and sometimes grudgingly, she nevertheless accepted it. Similarly Britain accepted that countries such as Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana could become independent in a peaceful and not in a revolutionary way. I am not thereby implying that they have made great economic progress with their independence.

We do not want to force independence upon any peoples within the republic of South Africa. It is my policy as well as that of my supporters that we do not want to force independence upon peoples inside and adjoining South Africa. But if there are peoples as in the case of the Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda, Ciskei and others who prefer the road of independence, we cannot and will not oppose them, however, small they may be. It is no use saying that a nation is small and cannot therefore become independent.

In Europe small nations are independent. As recently as last year, we had a delegation here in South Africa, viz the EEC delegation. The chairman of that group came from one of the smallest countries in Europe. It is the same size as Port Elizabeth.

In this connection we recognise at the same time the economic interdependence between the RSA and independent states in southern Africa. Surely it is a fact that there is interdependence between the Republic of South Africa and independent states. That is why we are furthering our good relations by means of agreements, diplomatic representation, security agreements, co-operation in the Development Bank of Southern Africa, water conservation, agriculture and the transfer of expertise. We are making provision for a secretariat for southern Africa.

†Multilateral co-operation is not a new concept to Southern Africa. I refer to the establishment of the Customs Union in 1910 which created formal multilateral ties between South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland which have been extended over decades. The scope of multilateral co-operation was further expanded by the establishment of the Development Bank of Southern Africa on 30 June 1983 by the Republics of South Africa, Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, and also by the creation of a South African TBVC system of multilateral co-operation at the 1982 Summit Meeting, which has since been making a substantial contribution to socioeconomic development in Southern Africa.

The multilateral system, together with the regional development system which covers the nine development regions in Southern Africa, presently consists of 50 committees and working groups. Discussions and negotiations between the SATBVC states take place weekly. In 1983, 1984 and 1985 a total of 310 multilateral meetings took place. About 30 SATBVC Ministers serve on the Multilateral Development Council of Ministers which provides policy guidance, and approximately 70 SATBVC heads of departments are directly involved in this system.

The system of co-operation is co-ordinated by a permanent secretariat which was established on 1 April 1985 and staffed by officials of all five states.

*Furthermore I have referred repeatedly to the reality of the existence of cultural groups in our multi-cultural country. Some of these groups do not desire independence at present—I admit that—but do desire a large measure of autonomy, in the same way as all the self-governing states. Not one of these self-governing states desires less autonomy; on the contrary, most of them to whom I have spoken, desire greater autonomy. Each of them maintains its own traditions and cultural life, and do not want to be dominated by others. Minority groups are entitled to protection. As far as this approach is concerned, this is the right course.

There are also the Black urban communities. Each such unit will have to have autonomy over matters affecting only that unit. In this respect I am not only referring to municipal autonomy; it will have to be greater autonomy. They must themselves be placed in a position to determine how far they want this autonomy to be taken.

In my Opening Address on 31 January I held out the prospect of certain legislative steps, which would serve as confirmation of the earnest intention of the Government in regard to reform in the constitutional and socioeconomic spheres.

On that occasion I pointed out that there were matters which would be embodied in legislation during the present session. These included: Citizenship, the expansion of the powers of the self-governing states, the involvement of Black communities in decision-making, freehold rights for members of Black communities, a uniform identity document for members of all population communities, the restructuring of the provincial system and an urbanisation policy.

The following pieces of legislation, including those in the sphere of reform, are at present in various stages of completion and must still be disposed of during the present session: The Local Government Bodies Elections Bill, the Provincial Government Bill, the Self-governing Areas Bill, the Township Development Bill, the Black Local Authorities Amendment Bill, the Black Communities Development Amendment Bill, the Influx Control and Related Measures Abolition Bill and the Laws on Constitutional Development Amendment Bill.

Moreover, various measures have been adopted, as is apparent from the Budget. In the socio-economic sphere, R1 000 million will be spent within three years. Then, too, there are the programmes for the training of the unemployed, with which we are achieving great success; programmes to improve education, as is apparent from the latest resolution of the Priorities Committee, which was announced here yesterday by my own colleague the Minister of National Education.

It is still our intention to honour that undertaking which I gave on 31 January. It will be done. At a later stage Parliament will adjourn temporarily and convene again to finalise the disposal of the necessary legislation. The Government intends to adjourn, not prorogue, this session of Parliament by about 20 June 1986, and to reconvene on 18 August 1986 for the completion of business.

In this connection I want to refer to the important report on the urbanisation strategy for South Africa, recently produced by the President’s Council. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has now submitted certain proposals as a result of that report, and the Cabinet has adopted resolutions on it. A White Paper dealing with the matter will be laid upon the Table next week. Hon members will then be able to ascertain in full what the Government’s standpoint in this regard is.

†In conclusion, before I resume my seat, the Government deems it essential that evolutionary constitutional development be continued in spite of unrest, boycotts and acts of terror. This is the only way in which to prove that real progress can only be achieved by using peaceful, constitutional methods.

The Government will thus continue to seek ways, in consultation with all communities, in which everyone’s participation in decision-making can be extended despite the present unfavourable conditions.

It is common cause that the present climate is not conducive to the immediate establishment of new extensive Government structures. My Government is also committed to not attempting to establish such structures unilaterally but to further a negotiation process in which all South African communities can jointly agree on a new dispensation.

It was in this spirit that I announced earlier this year at the opening of Parliament that I wished to negotiate the institution of a National Council with leaders of Black communities. I also announced that it should be an interim body to give all population groups participation in decision-making until negotiation leads to an agreement on an extensive new constitutional dispensation for all South Africans. On that occasion I proposed that the National Council should consist of representatives of my Government, of the governments of the self-governing states and leaders of other Black communities and interest groups so that we could jointly plan the future of our country.

I also envisaged that the council would meet as often as proved necessary, under my chairmanship, to consider matters of mutual interest, including intended legislation, and to propose concrete steps. I am of the opinion that the matter should now be taken further. I therefore announce that I intend to publish a Bill on the National Council as soon as possible in order to offer all parties concerned ample opportunity to communicate their views by means of comments and proposals.

It is my wish that negotiations on the National Council be furthered in this way and that it will lead to the passing of the Bill before the end of the present session of Parliament—the present session in its extended form, of course. I believe that a National Council in which the leaders of all our communities meet on a fixed basis can contribute much to create a climate in which they can work together with great success on the establishment of a new constitutional dispensation which would make provision for participation by all South Africans.

I also believe that the council could serve as an instrument through which we can purposefully further the ideals contained in the Preamble to the Constitution Act. In this regard I must emphasise that the council is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. I am thus of the opinion that the council indeed offers South Africans the opportunity of freely stating their views and preconditions. It offers us the opportunity of negotiating with each other our views and terms for a new South Africa instead of allowing preconditions to withhold us from meeting around the table.

If this is our approach, the National Council will without doubt prove to be an effective instrument for real change and progress in South Africa. For this purpose I put myself and my Government at the disposal of the country.

I appeal to leaders of all communities to accept the Government’s sincere intentions in this regard and to evaluate the Bill which I plan to publish in this spirit. With the positive contribution of each leader we can constitute the National Council shortly so that together we can face the compelling problems of our country.

Order! Before I call on the hon member for Sea Point to address hon members I want order in the House.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Surely, the proper appellation for the hon member for Sea Point is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

My apologies! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

Mr Chairman, in his hour-long address to this House the State President in the main sketched the background—the very important background—against which we have to try to solve the problems of our country. He dealt—in the first part of his speech in particular—with the question of terrorism and, in a sense, with the international connection that existed. I believe it is a factor which we all have to take into account because as the State President indicated— from his own perspective of course—this is complicating and aggravating the problems which we have in South Africa.

The State President went further and dealt with the internal unrest or the terrorist situation. Once again, it is a matter of concern, and I shall deal with it in a few minutes. Everything that the State President said today, however, indicates the importance and the urgency—I should say the dramatic urgency for the socioeconomic and constitutional reconstruction of this country. In that sense though, I believe the State President’s introductory speech was a great disappointment. He has really taken us no further than he did on 31 January this year. What he now says, is that there is going to be a second session of this Parliament to deal with the matters which should be before us today. It is not my intention to deal extensively with the whole issue. I must, however, respond briefly to a few points which the State President has made.

The State President dealt with foreigners or outside people—official or unofficial— who were interfering in a sense while they were trying to help South Africa to find solutions. We in these benches agree. We believe that the problems of South Africa have to be solved by the people of South Africa. However it would be idle for us to dismiss the fact that South Africa and its problems have become internationalised. Whether we like it or not, we have been caught up in the vortex of international politics. So I do not think we should just push aside everything that might come from well-meaning people on the outside.

As I understood him, the State President pushed aside suggestions from intermediaries. I want to know now whether that is, in fact, his response to proposals which may be forthcoming from a group such as the Eminent Persons Group. Is this his way of saying that those people should stay out of our affairs, that we do not want their assistance, and that we do not want their advice? When I think of these people who may be trying to make a contribution—encouraged by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to do so in the face of Commonwealth hostility—then I want to know from the State President whether his statement represents an advance rejection of the contributions, suggestions or proposals which may be forthcoming from this group. We want to know whether that is what he means.

The next point he dealt with was the question of the ANC. We will deal with that again in due course, but meanwhile I want to say to the State President that he must not think everyone who has spoken to representatives of the ANC—be they people inside or outside of South Africa—are naive. There may well be naive people among those who go and talk to these people on a wide range of views and opinions. However, the State President must understand—in fact, I think he will agree with me—that, whether we like to admit it or not, to date the Government has not been able to counter effectively some of the work of the ANC. That is the reality. The tactics the Government has adopted so far have not been as effective as they might or should have been.

Moreover, the State President has indicated that he does not see the ANC as a monolithic body. The hon member for Roodeplaat, I think, mentioned it the other day. He does not see the ANC as a monolithic body. In other words, while there may well be a dominant feature in the ANC, the ANC is not a monolithic body. I think one has to take this into account.

Thirdly, we must recognise that the ANC does enjoy widespread support, and for all of these reasons, I believe it is necessary to explore tactics which we can use in trying to counter the activities of the ANC. I believe it is important—even if we cannot get this across to everybody—to try to persuade as many people as possible to move away from the concept of violence. I believe it is necessary to persuade people that there is a better way of life in South Africa than resorting to violence. In that sense, I believe, a positive contribution can be made in trying to persuade people who have either been driven to violence or have voluntarily resorted to it, that there is a better way. We should put our heads together in an attempt to work out how we can do that in South Africa and lead this country into a era of greater peace.

The State President was generous in his admission that he had been at fault at times in the past. He mentioned the question of the Coloured labour preference policy. It was good that he mentioned it. There is, however, just one other matter I should like to put to the State President. Concerning this matter, I believe that the State President could be involved in one of the greatest acts of reconciliation in the Cape, and that is if he opened District Six to people of all races. [Interjections.] The Government’s decision in respect of District Six was a fundamental blunder. It was a misjudgement at the time.

Let us forget the past, however. I believe that, before the end of this debate, the State President can admit that just as he was wrong in regard to the Coloured labour preference policy, so he was wrong in respect of District Six. He must announce that the Government has decided to open District Six again so that the Coloured people of this country can come back to District Six. I really believe that will be a significant act of statemanship and reconciliation which will far exceed many of the other measures he proposes. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in the course of the Budget Debate, we on this side of the House tried to stress the urgency and the seriousness of the situation in South Africa. The situation remains so. Even over this past week, as a matter of fact, it has become increasingly urgent. We should be concerned—as indeed I think we all are—at the level of violence which has now become endemic in our society. It may be that some of that violence is instigated and initiated from outside. I think, however, that a great deal of that violence is initiated within this country. Lamentably, it has now become almost a part of the way of life in South Africa. As so often happens— the hon the Minister of Law and Order will know about this—on whatever side the individuals may be, they believe and they sometimes argue that they are justified in using violence. That happens in any violent situation: The person who commits the act of violence believes and argues that he is justified.

Let me state our point of view quite clearly. We believe that violence is ugly and it is brutal. There is nothing noble about violence; it is ugly and it is brutal, not only for what it does to individuals but for what it does to a whole society or a whole community. It brutalises that society or that community. Secondly, we believe that violence feeds on violence and, in the end, develops a destructive and mindless momentum of its own. Thirdly, while in the short term people might think they might win, violence produces no winners; violence only produces losers. The PFP therefore condemns violence as a political instrument, from whatever source or side that violence comes. We condemn the planned and organised violence of the revolutionary and the terrorist. We condemn the mindless violence of the mobs. We condemn the violence of repression; and we condemn the violence that is inherent in some of the laws which we know are wrong and which we believe we should get rid of in South Africa. These are the ingredients of the current cauldron of violence that exists in South Africa. We in these benches say that this madness of violence must stop before it destroys our society.

In these circumstances we believe that there must be action to deal with violence, and we believe that action must be tough. However, it is much more important that the action must be effective. Any government of the day has a duty to act against anarchists and terrorists who kill and bomb and burn in an attempt to impose their ideology or to satisfy their lust for power. It is the responsibility of any government in any country to deal with anarchism and naked, brutal terrorism.

A government and this Government in particular also has a duty to create a society which our people and the people who live in that society, because they believe in that society and its values, will want to defend against anybody who wants to destroy it. That is the task which lies before us in this country. I put it to the State President the other day that we believe this involves the ending of the injustice of apartheid as one of the steps towards getting rid of violence in South Africa. We accept the State President’s intention of a vast socio-economic restructuring—it must take place at a much greater pace and it must take place in consultation with the very people who are going to be affected. It must involve a system of effective power-sharing. Above everything else it involves setting in motion the process of genuine negotiation. One can state all the preconditions in the world but very often preconditions to negotiation prevent that very negotiation from taking place. Once negotiation does take place and once people become locked into the process of negotiation we can hope that the level of violence will wind down in this country.

It is against this background of the need for this urgent action that we, I believe, express the feelings of millions and millions of South Africans when we say that we are bitterly disappointed by the lack of action and the lack of concrete results on the part of the State President and his Government especially in the field of constitutional reform. It almost seems as if—I listened to the State President on 31 January 1986 and in January 1985—there is a state of paralysis as far as actually delivering the goods is concerned. We ask the State President what in fact has happened to this legislation of theirs. It is once again “in the pipeline” while in fact people have been dying. This session was planned a long time ago and already we are into its second half. We know that debate on the Budget is going to carry on until 6 June and there is still no legislation. Where is this legislation? The only answer we get is that “it is still coming”. When are the standing committees going to do their work? When are they going to be able to do their work? We were told that the White Paper on Urbanisation was in the course of being prepared in January of this year. We will look at that White Paper with considerable interest. We accept that it is the intention of the Government to move away from the pass law system as it operated but we want to make it very, very clear—and we will examine that White Paper—that if one form of regulation and control is to be substituted by another, that whole reform process is going to be doomed.

Secondly, we will look very carefully to see whether the issue of land for the people who are now going to be set free from the pass laws is going to be taken into account.

One senses if not a paralysis then a tension on that side of the House. I want to put it to the State President: Why must South Africa be held up while he is trying to obtain agreement among his Cabinet Ministers on matters which are of pressing and urgent importance in South Africa? Why do we have to wait until the NP can have a federal congress in order for him to get a mandate from his party before South Africa moves along? The State President is going to call a federal congress on 8 August and thereafter a session of this Parliament. Once again it looks as though the Government is putting the cohesion and unity of the NP before the progress of South Africa away from violence and revolution.

We on this side of the House believe that there should be two sessions of Parliament. Last year we called for a second session of Parliament. We believe that when one looks at South Africa, at the speed at which matters are developing both internally and externally and at the crisis situation which is developing that, it is a healthy thing that Parliament as a matter of rule should also have a session during September or October. When we suggested it last year, it was rejected out of hand. This year it is being introduced under another guise.

All we want to say is that we are waiting for the legislation. The State President told us at the beginning of the year exactly what he has told today. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning can shake his head but he is in fact part of the cause of the problem. [Interjections.] He is the cause of the problem. There are some 15 or 20 Bills which have to be dealt with during this session but the hon the Minister has not even put them to the standing committees. He is part of the fault.

I can only hope that we will not have a repetition of the farce that we had when we introduced the 1983 Constitution Bill. I hope that we will have an effective examination of critical legislation affecting the constitutional future of South Africa. It was a disgrace that last time after 34 clauses had been debated the guillotine fell and this House never debated the final 65 clauses of the Constitution Bill of South Africa. [Interjections.]

We are beyond 15 August 1985 but we are back to 31 January of this year. In the absence of concrete legislation before us we will during the course of this debate argue the specific steps that have got to be taken. Taking into account the seriousness and urgency of the situation we no longer have any confidence in the Government’s ability to cope with the problem to keep its party united and to bring moderate South Africans together in a new constitutional dispensation.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has created the impression that they are most disappointed because the State President is not delivering the goods. This was the point he made. I feel, however, that that hon member is disappointed because he did not think that there would be any announcement by the Government today envisaging what will happen during the rest of the session and the rest of the year.

*The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is disappointed. He says a kind of paralysis can be perceived on this side of the House.

What did the State President announce today? He said there will be legislation to implement the National Statutory Council. The State President also said he was going to invite people to take part in it. If that is not in fact a step towards giving a concrete answer and to getting Blacks and other interested parties so far as to come and speak and to take part in this structure, I wonder what that hon member wants in its place.

Surely the National Statutory Council was envisaged at the beginning of this year. It will not be long now before it assumes a concrete form. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should have welcomed this.

He also spoke about the White Paper regarding urbanisation. What does it matter if the Government takes its time before such a White Paper appears? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is constantly in favour of consultation and discussion with interested people. If it takes a bit of time for the Government to advance its point of view, what does it matter if there is a slight delay from time to time? There is no point in the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s saying he will look at everything. What we expect of him, is that he will indicate true participation in such consultation.

I do welcome one step taken by the hon the Leader today. He said: “Violence is brutal and ugly; there are no winners.”

†He said that the PFP condemned violence, including the violence of repression. He said that it had to stop. He then made a very important point which I do not think we have ever heard from the PFP in the past, namely that there had to be action, and that the action had to be tough in order to stamp out anarchism.

*All hon members heard his words. But what is his attitude and that of the hon member for Houghton when the hon the Minister of Law and Order and even the hon the Minister of Defence have to take strong action against violence? Then it is the fault of the authorities who are taking action. Apparently they, who want to stop the violence, are inviting further violence. That is why the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition added: “They are against the violence of repression.” The impression that constantly has to be created in the outside world is that the violence in South Africa has actually been invited by the authorities.

Have you yourself gone to look yet? Have you been there?

I think I gained more experience of violence in South Africa as early as 1960. This is not the first time violence has occurred in this country. There was violence in 1976 too. The hon members of the PFP are not the only people who have seen it or spoken to people who were involved in it. Nevertheless they always create the impression they are the only people.

[Inaudible.]

I want to tell the hon members of the PFP if we want a peaceful community in this country, we must have an upliftment programme. In that respect the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is correct. I do not differ with him on that point. We must also have a programme for reform, and these people must have a say, but these perpetrators of violence who are exploiting innocent people, even children, must be dealt with.

Even the hon member for Houghton, in moments of clear thought and level-headedness, says certain things now and again which one can agree with.

Very seldom!

I want to remind the hon member of what she said in that well-known interview conducted with her by Leadership.

The “Winnie Suzman” interview!

In the first place she spoke about the number of people that had been killed during this specific period. She also spoke of the children, and said:

That is what is taking place. That is the situation outside. It is not the presence of the Police or the Defence Force. Earlier, in 1960, we had the agitators, but it is ten times worse now, because now we have the intimidators. How do those intimidators play their part? Mrs Winnie Mandela said as far as they were concerned, they would free people with matches and “necklaces”. That is the kind of violence the Police and the Defence Force in South Africa must try to eradicate.

All the reform and all the steps we are taking to create better opportunities for people will be worth absolutely nothing if we do not also get to the root of the evil, viz that there are people “who do not want to share power, but they want to overthrow the power in South Africa by revolutionary means”. Unless the hon members realise that truth in the first place, none of the reform envisaged by us and envisaged by them will succeed in South Africa.

That is why the State President’s speech today was of great importance, particularly that first section in which he explained to this House and to the people of South Africa the link that exists between those responsible for the training of terrorists throughout the world, that this takes place in Libya and that Col Gadaffi and people who think as he does, are also creating those problems here in Southern Africa.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was that side’s chief speaker on foreign affairs, and one could have expected him to comment on it. He said, however, he was “disappointed in the introductory part of the State President’s speech”. Can one be disappointed if a State President, who is informed on this situation, warns the country against it? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said, however, he was disappointed in that introductory section of the State President’s speech. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

I agree with the hon member for De Kuilen that it is very important and significant that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition expressed himself here this afternoon as being in favour of more concerted and effective action being taken against any form of violence or terrorism in South Africa. I also think it is with interest that we took note of the information the State President furnished here. I do not think there is any doubt or difference of opinion about the necessity for absolute vigilance in the face of international terrorism, international communism and communist front-organisations.

It is also time for us to state publicly that we cannot regard these organisations as parliamentary organisations seeking expression within the parliamentary or democratic setup. They cannot be given the opportunity of specifically destroying the parliamentary system and democracy. I think we also agree that it is naive for certain people to think that they can have a heart-warming little conversation with hardened, skilled, dyed-in-the-wool communists and terrorists merely to find out what their standpoint is.

I think it is also important for us, from this House, to tell certain religious and church leaders that we do not go along with the standpoints which they adopt and on the strength of which they interfere in a political debate which is being waged in all seriousness throughout the country at the moment. I do not want to imply that a religious person or ecclesiastic cannot, from the clear evidence of the Scriptures, state the principles which should also govern political action, but if there are no clear principles involved, we have to tell certain religious leaders, and in particular certain Churches, to stick to their instituted tasks and directives. They must not become a party in the political debate in South Africa.

After everything the State President has said, and the points he raised and reiterated from the speeches he has been making since last year, and those he made at the beginning of this year, there must be no doubt, both inside and outside this House, about how sharply our standpoint on this side of the House differs from the course set by the Government.

I am not going to tire hon members with a discussion of the economic crisis in which the country finds itself under this Government. There are other opportunities to speak about that. I just want to say, however, that these are serious times in which many of our people, Whites and non-Whites, in various parts of the country are experiencing acute distress. It is a serious matter when the position is such that within the space of three months there have been 979 bankruptcies and 605 liquidations—more than 17 per day. That is a very disturbing phenomenon.

I must also refer to the unrest situation which is not only manifesting itself amongst the Blacks, but is also coming to the fore amongst the Whites. According to my observations there is also a silent revolution taking place amongst the Whites, inspired from a certain political quarter. There is a silent revolution in the country.

If one asks the Afrikaner to open up his cultural organisations slightly so that others can participate, one is undermining a people’s feeling of having a unique and exclusive heritage. I regard telling one’s own people that it is only a minority group in South Africa as an undermining of the ethnic feeling of the people I am part of.

The image that has taken hold is one of the Whites having become slack or even debilitated, not only in South Africa, but also outside South Africa. We have created doubts in the minds of our people with the abolition of certain of the provisions of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the blatant everyday mixing of Whites and non-Whites, the greater influx to what were previously White universities, the mixed political parties that are springing up and persuading people to make political concessions and to surrender. Those are all disturbing elements.

I want to say, moreover, that there are those at large in South Africa who are not countering revolution amongst the Black people or elsewhere, but who are inciting people and who should be taken in hand in some way or other. I do not hesitate to say that Archbishop Tutu is a man who makes use of dangerous language. He is a person who said on occasion:

It is the man who received the peace prize who said that.

Do you?

Winnie Mandela says the following:

I am saying that is dangerous language. Dr Beyers Naudé said he was not prepared to ask those employing violence against the system to adopt the course of peace and thereby keep on suffering.

Another statement reads:

This is dangerous language used by various people who are at large in South Africa. In the NP’s scheme of things the people I have just mentioned all still fall within the sphere of those with whom one shall have to co-operate, or with whom some of other form of co-operation will have to be sought, if they are not put out of action. They are part of that pattern and that set-up.

With regard to Chief Buthelezi I want to quote what, according to Business Day, he said on 5 February of last year:

That is dangerous language. That is threatening to the Whites. We on this side of the House are not a party which advocates the oppression of any people—not the Zulu people either. We do say categorically, however, that we refuse to be dominated by any other people—including the Zulu people. [Interjections.]

Here is another pronouncement of his that he made when he received the Newsmaker of the Year award. In reaction to a question about his ties with the ANC he said:

I am saying that those are dangerous forces on the march.

I specifically want to speak about the constitutional crisis in which we find ourselves. It is very clear that the status quo could not be maintained. Nor did hon members on this side of the House say we should adhere to what had come into being at a specific time in our history. We are not opposed to progress, or at least to moving away from the status quo; what we are indeed opposed to is the course that is being adopted or the proposals for such a course. From the start the present constitution has, in our opinion, embodied two basic errors.

The first is that it has deprived the Whites of meaningful self-determination, and here I am speaking of meaningful self-determination and not merely contributions that can be made. Parliament, which was a sovereign body, is no longer a sovereign White Parliament. That has been done away with. Apart from that error, there is also a second error made within the context of that error, and that is that on its political power-sharing course it has excluded the Blacks. In my view that is like a wheel within a wheel. It is an error within an error. No wonder the Government has therefore been pressurised from abroad and on the local front about rectifying that situation.

The way in which it now wants to rectify the matter is by extending the power-sharing formula so that it is not only the Coloureds and the Indians who are sharing power with the Whites, but that the Blacks should also be included in some or other way, so that at all levels, from the local level to the highest possible level, they can participate in the decision-making processes within one undivided State.

We on this side of the House contend that the State President’s political reform will unavoidably lead to Black majority rule if he is not stopped or does not change course completely. [Interjections.] We do not know what his Congress is going to tell him in August, but I do not think they can tell him anything other than what he has already prompted them to say.

On this course he has set we take note of the pressure, the threats and the encouragement that lie ahead for him. Here, for example, I have a report on what President Reagan supposedly said. With reference to our esteemed State President he said:

That is President Reagan saying that he put on the pressure and “he has agreed with us”. He says our State President agrees with him, “that he finds the past system repugnant.” This “past system” is separate development. The “past system” is apartheid. Later we called it separate development. According to Mr Reagan—I do not know who informed Mr Reagan—our State President now also finds the previous system “repugnant”. [Interjections.] That is a fashionable word that President Reagan uses, and he confers it on our State President.

In this connection we have the right to ask questions. Under that system we reserved separate residential areas—not only for Whites, but also for others—we had separate schools, voters’ rolls and Houses in Parliament. According to Mr Reagan, who sent this report out into the world, our State President now also finds these things “repugnant”. Under this system, the system which is now being discredited, we established national States and spent millions of rand on the consolidation of those Black States so that they could govern themselves on the basis of their separate geographic location. That is apartheid; that is separate development! Now it is suddenly “repugnant” or obsolete. I am thinking of aspects such as consolidation, independent States, own citizenship, own governments and own administrations—there was all that under that system.

The same kind of system applied when Britain granted independence to Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland. They are geographically separated from the rest of Southern Africa and started functioning as separate States—as I asked an hon member to the more leftist right of me the other day: Sir, an independent Black State, is that separateness or not? Is it apartheid or is it not? Why this parrot-call to all and sundry for the abolition of apartheid? Meanwhile the independent existence of peoples and their respective rights bear the closest possible ties with that form of exclusiveness in terms of one governs one’s own territory and in terms of which the highest political authority is not shared with any other people or race.

We have noted the reaction of a person who has had a great deal to say inside and outside South Africa. I am now referring to Dr Chester Crocker. A certain Mr Wolfe asked him whether the Reagan administration was in favour of the creation of a system of Black majority government and the protection of White minority rights. Dr Crocker’s reply was: “I think it is self-evident in everything we have said.”

In no way am I trying to say that the Government is responsible for everything Dr Crocker has said, but against the background of what Mr Reagan said, and the fact that discussions are constantly being held with Dr Crocker—we have already wondered whether he is not a Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs for South Africa!—we find it a disturbing phenomenon. [Interjections.]

I am speaking about people who want to encourage the Government and even blackmail it into continuing with its reform plans. Let us listen to what was said by a man who was invited to hold discussions with the State President, because his door was open to him. I am again referring to Chief Buthelezi. He said on occasion:

Sir, he is part of the collaboration team mentioned on the front page of Die Nasionalis under the heading “Collaboration or suicide.” He is the man who says:

On another occasion he said:

That is the direction in which the State President and the Government are being encouraged to move, even threatened or blackmailed into moving.

I want to highlight a few points from the State President’s policy announcements. I begin with the statement he made on 31 January of this year. He said:

†We say that in an undivided South Africa there can be no separate Black Parliament for the ten million and more Blacks within this country who have been granted permanency in the country.

*The Government states that there can only be one government in any one country. That is true. If there can only be one government, however, but millions of Black people are declared permanent citizens of the Republic of South Africa and they, who outnumber the Whites by more than two to one, are told they will be participating in the Government of this country, it could not be one White government, because they would have to participate in that government on a numerically proportionate basis. Read what Chief Buthelezi said on another occasion.

†Black people demand representation on the same basis, and in the same political structures, with Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

*No form of separation is acceptable to them, the result being that they will not participate in any system of that nature.

It is logical and reasonable, from their point of view, that they will demand proportional representation in any body in which decisions are taken about South Africa as a whole. One could start with the National Statutory Council, which the State President proposes for the future, by saying that because that is where Blacks will have a say, that would be the beginning of power-sharing—“institutionalised power-sharing”. If one were to do so, let me predict that no Blacks would participate. I am not trying to discourage them, but none of them will participate if this is mere “tokenism”, or if there are only a few of them, without the prospect of representation on a proportional basis, and if that body does not have any substance, does not have any authority. It would be a body in which the Cabinet would be represented, other Black communities and the governments of the national States. In their view that would not yet be a government. That being so, what I am saying is: “You cannot escape Black majority rule, and then you cannot escape what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated as being inevitable. A Black State President then becomes inevitable for the whole of South Africa.” What I am then saying is that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was correct. The Government would then be exactly where the PFP wanted it to be a few years ago.

If the Government were now to say no, it was not prepared to go that far and do that, thereby stating that the Government was not prepared to accept the fact that there could be a Black President for South Africa with a majority of Blacks in the South African population, my contention is that one would be creating frustrations amongst the Blacks and would be responsible for such frustrations. Then one would also be responsible for violence and unrest in the country.

Let us argue from the point of view of a federation. The State President speaks of regions or population groups, etc. We now have a racial federation, because in the present form of government there is a measure of racial federation. If one is proposing that it should be a regional federation, the fact remains that it is still a unitary State, still an undivided South Africa, and as far as its upper echelons are concerned, there is still one umbrella Parliament for the whole of South Africa. In years past the NP said one had no guarantee, in terms of the regions identified by the PFP, that in any one region there would be a White majority. If one did not have a White majority in any one region, what sort of federal parliament would it then be? At that level one would be delivered into the hands of a Black majority.

The State President has said that the national States need not take independence. We accept that. We ourselves have said that one cannot force those people to accept independence. If they do not accept independence—kwaNdebele has, wonder of wonders, asked for independence—and do not become independent, and if one adds the population of the national States to the overall population of one’s unitary State, one is in the same position—that of having a Black majority. If it comes to voting in those bodies in which voting can take place, there would be a Black majority.

Let us talk about the election of a State President. In a unitary State one would surely not be able to exclude those people from the electoral college designed to elect a State President. If one could not exclude them— and one would not be able to do so—one would merely be giving them proportional representation. In granting them proportional representation, one must give them more than 100. If one were merely to give them as many members as the Indians have in the electoral college for the election of a State President—only 13—there would be 51 non-Whites in that electoral college whose object it is to elect a State President. It would then be very easy for them to elect a non-White State President. One would then merely have 13 of them there, but in working according to a system of proportionality, one would be at the mercy of a Black majority in South Africa as a whole.

Since my time has expired I should like to conclude with this point.

Mr Chairman, I should like to congratulate the State President on his actions during the past year.

Hear, hear!

The conditions of the past year would have broken many leaders. The State President came through everything forcefully. In addition he built us a bridge between the old and the new. If I have to write him an epitaph one day, I shall write: “The leader of all time”. [Interjections.]

During the course of my speech I should like to reply to the hon member for Waterberg. He said the usual things again, all the usual things he always says. During the Second Reading debate he said exactly the same things as well. In fact, I heard nothing new from him. His problem—and it is also his party’s problem—is that all their nagging revolves around apartheid. To them everything revolves around the concept and the word “apartheid”. I now put it to them that apartheid is not only outdated; apartheid is dead. [Interjections.] Yes, never mind, I shall get to that. I shall tell hon members today why apartheid is dead. We have entered a new dispensation. We are firmly engaged in it. We have entered a new era, an era of which the basis is division of groups or peoples. That is the basis. Many things from the past are being retained in the new dispensation. Why do we have to use a word that people do not like, however? As far as I am concerned—and it will stay that way—I shall talk about own residential areas in future. We must stop talking about separate residential areas. The people do not like that. [Interjections.] We must speak of own residential areas. We must speak of own voters’ rolls. We must speak of own cultures. We must speak of own groups. Do you know, Sir, all these things will eventually be included in the cultures of the separate ethnic groups. These are things that have come to stay.

Why must we be derogatory, Sir? I merely want to point out the following things in connection with the old National Party. The Pact Government had a slogan—segregation. General Hertzog, who still pronounced many words in the Dutch way, spoke of “segregatie”. That is how he pronounced it. When amalgamation took place, General Hertzog took his word along to the United Party. Then we had no word. [Interjections.] Yes, we had no slogan. In the 1930s the National Party struggled to find a suitable word because as long as General Hertzog was in the ranks of the United Party, he retained “segregatie” for his own party. Then, during the war years, the United Party dispensed with segration. The whole thing came to an end. We then began to look for a word. I do not know who created the word “apartheid”. I have an idea it was the late Oom Paul Sauer.

It was Die Burger.

Perhaps it was. Yes, it might have been Die Burger. In any case, it was the Paul Sauer Commission which defined apartheid. The State President and I served in that commission. We co-operated fully with him. We assisted in the creation of that document. Let me say it, Sir. Apartheid was never meant to be an ideology. [Interjections.] It was not an ideology. It was a means to an end. It was not an ideology, however, and that is why it failed as an ideology. [Interjections.] That is why it led to the idea of groups. This then is the concept we are employing in this new dispensation.

The main reason for this failure was our selfishness. Our selfishness, the selfishness of the Whites, the selfishness of the National Party, my selfishness and the selfishness of all of us, was the main cause of this failure. Establishing own states was a very wonderful idea. In fact, it was one of the most wonderful ideas. What did we do then, however? Once we had established the own states, we forbade White capital there. How could we expect to keep those people in those home lands if we did not develop the homelands. We did almost what the colonial countries did: They moved out of that part of Africa and told the Blacks, “You are on your own now.”

If we did not establish work-creating bodies in those homelands we created, surely we could not expect to keep the people there. We admit the mistakes we made. Do hon members know what we did in the Transkei? We bought out the shops there. The people had shops in the Transkei. I think they paid rent to the Native Trust. We bought those people out for £6 million. That was the only infrastructure in the Transkei, and we bought it out! Do hon members know what we said then? We convinced ourselves of all kinds of things and had a wonderful time discussing them; we speculated that those people would have returned to their homelands by 1978. That would have been the case, in fact, had we created work opportunities for them. We did not do so, however, what happened in 1978? In 1978 we had a flood of people. Yes, that was what we had. We did not have an influx. In 1978, when people should have been returning, we had them coming here in droves.

The same applies to the Western Cape. A unanimous congress decision was taken that the Blacks had to be moved from the Western Cape because the Western Cape had to be reserved for the Coloureds. At the time there were fewer than 100 000 Blacks in the Western Cape. Their wives and children were not here yet. What happened, however? We did not succeed in sending them away; on the contrary, we imported even more. The farmers argued that the cows would not allow the Coloureds to milk them. [Interjections.] The industrialists argued that the Coloureds could not work; that they could not make bricks. That is how the potential employers reasoned.

That is why I say our problems are the result of our own selfishness. We leaned too heavily on Black shoulders; and our own selfishness led to the failure of apartheid. Do hon members know what the opposition parties are fighting about now? Yesterday we debated the National Education Vote. One section of the opposition fought for apartheid to be taken away, whereas the other section fought for the retention of apartheid. They tilt at windmills and they bluster. Can they not see that we have entered a new era? If they do not want to enter it, they can remain where they are; but we thank them very much in any case.

Mr Chairman, I think the first issue raised by the State President deserves more attention than it has had up to now. Doubtless, he was addressing largely the converted in South Africa. However, there are probably some elements in this country to whom the State President felt it necessary to speak. I believe his message was directed mainly at the West and at some other foreign countries. Still, I feel that he stopped short of what he should finally have said. We all agree and quite obviously this party agrees with what he said about international terrorism and its links with the ANC, the PAC, the PLO, etc. That is common cause among us but I am sorry that the State President did not clearly put on record this country’s attitude to the action taken by America …

Order! Hon members are beginning to converse aloud again. They must keep their voices down. The hon member may proceed.

I am sorry that SA’s attitude to the strike by America against Libya was not put on record in this House. I want to say that I believe that that strike was right, that it was justified by the provocation and that we should be counted among those countries that accept the fact that when one’s country is attacked by terrorists from whatever source one is entitled to seek out the source of that terrorism and to deal with it. I hope that message will get across to other countries that have criticised us when we have gone across our borders to chase ANC or Swapo terrorists back to their nests and to destroy them where we found them. That same right which we have exercised is what America has exercised in regard to Libya, and I welcome it as an example to the world of what should be done when a country experiences terrorism.

I hope moreover that the reference by President Reagan to terrorism being eliminated wherever it may be harboured in the world will also apply to Africa and those in Africa who harbour terrorists as part of the international terrorist organisation. I want to make that clear as the view of this party towards the strike and towards retaliation against naked terrorism against innocent people. This also applies to South Africa because we acted correctly when innocent people were killed by limpet bombs in Pretoria, Amanzimtoti and elsewhere.

I want now to turn to the other issue raised by the State President. I want to say that it is now just over two and a half months since 31 January but it has seemed much longer. I want to speak to the State President against the background of his experience as Minister of Defence for many, many years. He will know that when one crosses a river and establishes a bridgehead it is vital to get out of that bridgehead, to break out of that bridgehead and move forward because otherwise one is cooped up, a target to be shot at and sniped at and bombed and shelled from all quarters. This is what has happened in South Africa. We crossed a river, we established a bridgehead and we have stuck in that bridgehead for two and a half months. This has given time to our detractors, to the radicals and to the revolutionaries to say that it was just empty talk because we were bogged down in the bridgehead waiting to produce legislation, to put legislation before the House for South Africa and everyone else to see that we were serious and that we had broken out of the bridgehead and that we were now moving forward on the road of constitutional progress. I welcome the undertaking that those Bills are going to come, but by August another four months will have gone by and, until then, we will still be sitting in the bridgehead being sniped at and shelled. If the State President had ever been in a situation—as I was for one winter in Italy—across a river unable to move forward and unable to retreat because the bridges had all been mined, then he would know what it is like to be shelled week in and week out as this country is being shelled and bombed with propaganda, with subversion and with everything that can be thrown at us.

Whatever the problems may be I believe the shorter we make our stay in the bridgehead, the better for South Africa. However difficult it may be to produce the Bills and have them before this House for the world and particularly our own people to see we should have done it.

I do not quibble with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. People can talk and advise us but they will not succeed in dictating to this country. We reject dictation. However, one undercuts the basis of their criticism if there is something there for them to see. I know the load that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning carries but if we could not have had the legislation there should have been something tangible before now—and there should certainly be before August—to show that we have broken out and are on our way.

In the meantime unrest will continue. I believe we are not doing what we could and should be doing. I give full marks to our security forces. I accept that there were excesses—I am not able to deal with the details now—but in principle our Police and the Defence Force have had a time of tremendous strain. They have restored order in a place and then moved out, only to have unrest break out again. I feel we should have learnt by now that it is no use restoring law and order and then pulling out the security forces and leaving a vacuum.

Again we come back to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. That is why I raise this issue under the Vote of the State President as all departments are affected. When we restore law and order in a township and move out, we should leave a functioning authority in that township. It should be a functioning authority with the necessary back-up to give it teeth and allow it to operate.

We have heard over and over in this session the acceptance of the principle of municipal police. There are some in training but we have not yet been able to install a municipal police force after clearing up the unrest in a township which will guarantee the safety of a functional and functioning local authority able to continue the normal administration of that town. We could then move on to the next township and all the others thereafter.

It is no use just settling the trouble and pulling out and then letting the revolutionaries and radicals move in and stir it all up again. One can continue playing that game ad infinitum but all one does is to exhaust one’s security forces and test their self-control until eventually someone breaks and then there is more trouble. I believe we have to tackle the problem very seriously.

The State President will remember an occasion during 1975 when he gave advice to a certain Black leader. He told him not to let himself get caught, corralled in a place he could not get out of. The situation is now reversed so that I now say to the State President that he must remember the advice he gave elsewhere not to get corralled by his enemies in a town, not to try to hold onto something but to strike and pull out. That advice was given in the opposite direction, but let us now apply it to ourselves in reverse. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I merely want to tell the hon member for Durban Point the legislation he is so dissatisfied with, is being introduced now. Therefore we shall probably have to speak about it soon.

I want to look back at what has happened during the past months, viz the venomous attacks on the State President by certain business circles and trade journals.

Are you not going to mention names?

I can mention names if I want to. Things have gone so far that a psychiatrist was asked to analyse the State President’s body language. He said the State President was no longer fit for his post.

I think these people have suddenly realised what is happening in South Africa, and that a total onslaught is in progress. If one reads what they write, one realises that they are “manning all panic stations” as the students put it. In their great terror they immediately sought a scapegoat, and they chose our State President. We can really blame them for that kind of journalism—I almost said gutter-journalism—which occurred during August, September and October last year in particular. I see one of the men who had quite a part in it has now been promoted. I hope he does better in future.

Those people can go back to 9 December 1967, when the State President addressed a youth congress here at the Castle. It is very interesting to read what the State President said on that occasion. Even then he said there was a revolutionary onslaught on South Africa—a total onslaught. It is also interesting that the State President said that long ago that we should develop a total strategy against the onslaught.

In the third place the State President said—this is very important—the military cannot solve the problem alone. He said the strategy should be a joint effort by political, military and economic leaders. I remember how many reports asserting that the State President wanted to take over by means of a military coup appeared in certain newspapers. There was a great deal of that kind of journalism, but as early as 1967 the State President had said it should be a joint effort by the economic, political and military leaders.

In 1979 a report appeared in the defunct Rand Daily Mail. With regard to the then Prime Minister’s philosophy, approach and policy, the newspaper used words such as “constellation of states”, “Marxist onslaught”, “free enterprise” and “total strategy”. That was in 1979. In addition the Rand Daily Mail said these were just a lot of vague, meaningless words. They should have added that the State President had said his endeavour was to increase the prosperity of all South Africans with the co-operation of the private sector and the State.

The State President’s whole policy is to employ the economy against economic onslaughts and to use the private sector to increase prosperity. He also wants to use the private sector to assist us in our difficult relations politics. I am thinking of training, urbanisation and housing, but we cannot have a strategy without co-ordination and organisation. Everyone wants immediate results, and that is why, during the past eight months, the State President has developed a structure of three bodies which have to attend co-ordination. We are thinking here of the National Management System; of the Committee on National Priorities and of the Economic Advisory Council. People ask whether these bodies work. That is what the hon member for Yeoville asked last night. Yes, the Committee on National Priorities has sat twice and is going to sit for the third time soon.

In addition, the State President has created service organisations to assist these bodies. There is the Secretariat for example—which can also be called the State President’s economic desk—which acts for the Economic Advisory Council, as well as for the Committee on National Priorities and for the Cabinet Committee on the Economy. The State President has therefore created a structure here to implement his strategy. People always say structure follows strategy and I think that is what the State President is doing. We can congratulate him on that.

That is not all, however. The State President has always been open to liaison in the business world. We can discuss that, but I think he is one of the first Prime Ministers or State Presidents who has given particular attention to liaison with the business world. His door is always open to them. We think of the great milestones in his history—inter alia the Carlton Conference and the Good Hope Conference. If we look at the successes and we see what happened after the State President had had those two meetings, we can ask the State President to have another conference and to inform the business world about his successes—I often get the impression they do not know about them—and also about his policy, because he has made a great deal of progress since the Good Hope Conference. I think that will encourage our people again, and that that accusation and the constant gossip-mongering directed at him will disappear.

What ensued from the Carlton Conference? The Development Bank of Southern Africa and the Small Business Corporation. In its turn the Good Hope Conference had an influence on housing, security and regional development. If we look at this, we cannot but see how this Government has developed a strategy which the State President had as early as 1967, so that during the past eight months the State President has developed his structures and is implementing them. People say too easily that nothing is ever achieved.

One cannot implement one’s strategy unless one has the necessary organisations. I remember, as a matter of interest, that when the President began to appoint people, businessmen asked me why he wanted a businessman. They said he was taking even more people out of the business world, but they did not realise what the State President’s policy was and how he had built up his house brick by brick. One cannot but say to him: “Mr State President, keep up the good work. Ignore the ugly journalism directed at you, because you have gone ahead and shown this country that you do not allow yourself to be put off by that kind of attack against you. We wish you every success in this debate, and we know you will do well.”

Mr Chairman, I respect your ruling about interjections, but I hope you will relax it for the few minutes that I am speaking, because I actually do not feel at home. This place is like a morgue, and I should really like to see a little life in here.

Order! May I point out that I never ruled out all interjections. However, interjections are one thing, but a general uproar and disorder in this Chamber are something quite different.

What you have just said, Sir, has made me very happy.

I shall come back to the hon member for Waterkloof, but I should like to deal firstly with two other matters which arose earlier in the debate. I shall then come to the State President’s speech.

Mr Chairman, if I may, I should like to say just two things to the hon member for Waterberg.

There are very few governments in the world that are amicably disposed towards us in South Africa. If there is a government that is friendly towards us but which perhaps does not agree with everything that we do, I believe it would be a fatal mistake to turn that government into an enemy of South Africa. We cannot afford to adopt an attitude towards the USA and its present administration, for example, and antagonise them towards us because of some things that they say. In exactly the same way I believe it would be a mistake to antagonise moderate Black leaders. It is difficult enough to get a dialogue going in South Africa at all without throwing away the few friends there may be who adopt what I believe to be a centrist attitude in South Africa.

Therefore, if there are some people who say things we do not like we have to be very careful. Sometimes the hon member for Waterberg says some things that I do not like. Maybe it is not just sometimes, but often, and sometimes I do the same. [Interjections.] We have to be very careful not to antagonise everybody in the world and turn them against us, both inside and outside of South Africa.

The hon member for Durban Point is not here, but his colleagues will perhaps remind him that when he was in trouble at that bridge head, and everyone was shooting at him and he did not know how to get out of trouble, we in the air force helped and saved him. [Interjections.] We will do it again. He need not worry. We will get him out and we will set him right.

The hon member for Waterkloof introduced a topic I want to speak on. I should like to address the State President particularly about the National Priorities Committee to which reference was made.

The legislation concerning this committee was actually passed some considerable time ago. The hon member for Waterkloof said that it had in fact met twice and that it was going to meet a third time. I am not terribly impressed with meeting twice in all this time. However, there is a dearth of knowledge on the part of the public in regard to its activities, its operations and its decisions. I believe the State President should tell us during this debate what decisions have been taken and what priorities have been determined.

South Africans have views on priorities. If I may, I should like to mention some of them. They include stability, the depolarisation of our society and economic prosperity. These three priorities must rank high in any determination of priorities. Priorities, however, are not only for politicians to decide. They are for all South Africans to decide. Therefore I would like to repeat my appeal to the State President, namely that the National Priorities Committee should be broadened in order to see to it that the people from the private sector co-operate with the public sector in it, not merely to assist in the giving of evidence and advice, but as participants in that committee in order to determine our priorities. I believe that that is extremely important and that we need to deal with it.

The State President also made reference to what is taking place in Libya. I think everybody in South Africa is concerned about that. I should like to draw attention to just one simple fact. It is interesting to note that there were protests in South Africa against the Americans’ bombing of Libya. However, I did not see or read of any protests in South Africa against the bombs in a nightclub in Berlin, and I did not see any protest or demonstration against the bomb in the TWA aeroplane. I can go on to list a whole lot of things that have happened but where there has been no protest and no demonstration to show disapproval. That in itself perhaps says quite a lot about the people who are protesting in these circumstances.

The important issue to which I want to return is the fact that the State President referred to the proposed new National Statutory Council where he hoped to have negotiations with various peoples. To my mind negotiation in South Africa, whatever form it takes, is absolutely vital. The best way to encourage negotiation is for people to get together, even before the constitution of any formal body, to talk together without preconditions, without agendas, without non-negotiables. They should sit down around a table and get to know one another better. When they do that they will find, in the absence of all the preconditions and stipulations, that they actually have much more in common to talk about than they had thought before they met. I must tell you that I think it takes a great man to make the first move, and it is not a question of diminution of status to make the first move in this regard. I believe that the first move in this respect should come from this House and, more specifically, from the State President. I would like him to repeat his statement that his door is open to every person of goodwill who is prepared to talk to him without pre-conditions or agendas. If that comes about, I think he will find that it will produce fruits which all of us will be able to pluck in due course.

Political negotiation is not the only issue, however. Constitutions are not the only issue in South Africa. There are many other things which are of concern. I want to turn to the economic issue to try to demonstrate this. As we have all had statistics quoted to us, I should just like to show hon members some graphs, which I hope the State President will do me the honour of looking at.

When one looks at the unemployment graph, for example—and this is only for Whites, Coloureds and Asians—one can see how unemployment has shot up in South Africa. Everyone can see it and everybody knows it. When one looks at the graph of insolvencies, one can see how the insolvencies of individuals have shot up in South Africa. When, on the other hand, one looks at the graph of new companies registered, one sees that they have shot down. When one looks at the annual average growth of the real gross domestic product, about which we have spoken, one only has to look at the graph to see how both South Africa and we as individuals have become poorer. I could go on quoting examples in this regard.

I want to say that what we need in South Africa is further negotiation and understanding in respect of the economic problems of the country. In this regard, the hon member for Wonderboom gave me an opening when he spoke about the Carlton and Cape of Good Hope Conferences.

I want to appeal to the State President to hold a further conference. He should hold a conference for businessmen, workers, consumers, academicians and everyone else who can contribute toward the wellbeing of the South African economy, because any person of goodwill in South Africa will want South Africa to prosper irrespective of his political outlook. We have to have the input of everyone in South Africa who can contribute to this objective. In this way, irrespective of the politics of the people and their race or colour and irrespective of whether they are employer or employee, the State President should call together all the leaders in the various fields in a new conference; a conference not only of good hope, as he once called it, but one of planning for the future. It should be a conference for the 80s and 90s and for the year 2000, with the aim of planning how we are going to put our people into jobs. If we do not put our people into jobs and if we do not create wealth in South Africa then, unfortunately, it will not be possible for our security forces to control the situation. We have actually to place people in jobs in order for South Africa to survive in an acceptable form.

If we solve the economic problem and if we get the people back to work, then the solution of the political problem will be that much easier. However, if there is hunger and unemployment and that kind of deprivation, then finding a political solution will be extremely difficult if not impossible.

I therefore make the appeal that all the brains in South Africa and all those people of goodwill who, to my mind and as I keep saying are in the centre of the picture in South Africa—ignore the radicals to the left and right if they do not wish to participate— be brought together in order to help solve South Africa’s economic problems.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville addressed himself very directly to the State President in a very constructive manner and I therefore do not want to take issue with him today, except on one point.

He promised the hon member for Durban Point that he would once again come to his rescue just as he did many years ago in an airforce ’plane.

He was a good navigator then. Now he has lost his way! [Interjections.]

He still knows how to save the hon member. [Interjections.]

I should like to remind the hon member for Yeoville that he is now not a navigator in an airforce aeroplane but a passenger in an unguided missile that cannot get off the ground! [Interjections.]

I hope you are not referring to Parliament!

No, Sir, I was referring to the party which he represents.

*Today I should like to speak briefly about the concept of apartheid. Although we have not yet heard the word used very much today, I am sure that in this debate we shall be hearing it virtually as often as during the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation. I am referring to pronouncements about the fact that the Government should please abolish apartheid immediately. A chorus of voices in the PFP is coming to the fore with that request. [Interjections.] On the other hand there is the CP continually reproaching the Government for having killed apartheid, or as they state in their pamphlets, having murdered it.

These days apartheid has actually become an English word, because I think that for every single time the word is used in Afrikaans, it is used a thousand times in English. I have had a quick look at what the dictionaries have to say about apartheid. In definitions and descriptions in dictionaries and textbooks there are three clearly discernible facets. Firstly apartheid is said to be a policy; some call it a system. The second facet is that it is a policy or system of racial discrimination. The third facet entails the fact that racial discrimination is aimed at endorsing or maintaining White privilege. That is what apartheid has come to mean in recent years.

I want to remind the hon members of the CP that even Dr Verwoerd relinquished the concept of apartheid at the time. He replaced it with the concept of separate development, which is something completely different to the old concept of apartheid. So if they continue advocating apartheid today, they must know that they are advocating a policy or system of racial discrimination benefiting the Whites.

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

No, I am sorry, but my time is limited.

I have come across a very interesting little book. It is called The Apartheid Handbook, and it is written by a certain Roger Omond, who was a reporter on the late Daily Despatch and who is now deputy editor of The Guardian in Britain. He said there was so much talk about the concept of apartheid that he wanted to have it recorded. What does apartheid actually mean in practice? He wrote a whole book about the meaning of apartheid and the actual effect it had on people. There are approximately 36 chapters in the book, but a portion of it deals with security legislation. The portion dealing with apartheid covers approximately 25 chapters.

What struck me when I began reading the book was that virtually all of it was written in the past tense. It is actually a book about the history of apartheid, a book about what apartheid once was. That was what struck me. This man is no friend of South Africa— one can see that clearly from his approach to the book. I just want to give hon members one tiny example. When the writer gets to Black education, he goes back to the time of Dr Verwoerd to explain what Black education is really all about. He quotes the following statement by Dr Verwoerd:

For that negative aspect, dating from the actual apartheid era, he goes back to 1952, but he does not even get as far as the era of separate development, nor what we are saying about Black education today.

That is his approach in the book. In other words, he is not trying to take up the cudgels for the South African Government, not at all. When he begins to write about those things, however, there is nevertheless just a touch of honesty in his saying that that was the case, that in this way or that way a certain Act adversely affected the people in South Africa. I want to reiterate that virtually all of this is written in the past tense.

He then brings in other aspects that actually have nothing to do with apartheid. When he gets round to the incomes of people in the various race groups in South Africa, he states here that in relation to the wealth of 100 White people, Indians get a mere 73% of that wealth, Coloureds only 65% and Black people only 56%. Looking at a situation such as this, one finds that there is no country in the world where things are any different. There is no country in the world where Black people generally earn more than White people—not in Africa, nor anywhere in the world.

We, however, are now being blamed for this. This is further proof of how this book actually attempts to find fault with us.

What I am trying to say is that in going through this book and analysing its content, drawing up a list of the charges brought against South Africa in the past, and still being brought against South Africa today because people such as this man do not want to concede that things have changed, one finds that out of the full 100% of the book’s content there is perhaps 20% or perhaps only 10% of the policy of apartheid left—ie a situation in which we specifically maintain, as a policy, measures aimed at bringing about separation. In looking at a system of apartheid, one in which there are still injustices of which we are aware but which we want to eliminate, we see that there is still perhaps 20% left. Whilst I was still a lecturer at a university, any student who obtained 10% or 20% failed hopelessly. In that respect this book is therefore statistical proof of the fact that apartheid as a discriminatory policy or system is not only dead, as the hon member Mr Van Staden has said, but that what is left of apartheid is also rapidly being eliminated.

Having told ourselves that, we come to the point of telling the rest of the world: Look, you have blamed us for all these things, but in terms of your own definition we have tangibly eliminated all those things you have been protesting about; you are now not going to criticise us any longer, because the time has now come for us to get together and see how we can again build up this country.

Mr Chairman, I could not quite make out what the hon member for Helderkruin was trying to argue about, because in the beginning he almost blamed the Progs for wanting to chase the NP away from apartheid, and at the same time he blamed us because we want to force the NP back to apartheid. I shall not react to his speech any further.

I want to tell the hon member for Yeoville something although unfortunately he is not here now. He told my hon leader that we should not antagonise the few states in the world which are well-disposed towards us. I want to agree with the hon member when he says we must try to keep the friends we have. I also want to say, however, that when we speak to strong countries in the West, or speak to some of their people who visit us, we do not hesitate to tell them very openly and quite honestly and frankly—whether they are members of the Eminent Persons Group or of President Reagan’s advisory group makes no difference—exactly where we stand. I put it to the hon member for Yeoville that he must not expect the Conservative Party to be apologetic in respect of the case of the White man in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I want to put a second point to him and to the hon member for Houghton, Sir. That is that in my opinion the hon member for Houghton reacted in a very interesting way to Bishop Tutu’s appeal for punitive sanctions. According to The Citizen she used the word “horrendous”. The reaction of the hon member for Yeoville to that was very sharp too. Now the hon member for Yeoville is upset today too. He also remarked that now that there is an attack on Libya, there are people in South Africa who are angry with America.

I put it to those two hon members, however: Those people acting like this might perhaps be of their own making. Are those people not indeed of their own making? Are they not perhaps the people who once upon a time clasped that angry group to their bosom, when they were inciting them against the National Party, when it was still on the right course? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, that in fact is what those hon members must ask themselves. The hon member for Houghton used the word “horrendous” in relation to punitive sanctions.

I used it in connection with Black violence! They have it all wrong! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we have taken cognisance of the fact that the State President now wants to continue with his National Statutory Council. I must say we had begun to wonder about it, and in fact I had prepared to ask him today whether he is going to go ahead with his National Statutory Council. Indeed, I am not the only one who wondered about that, Sir. I took cognisance of a regional conference held by the National Party in the Boland on 8 March. At that conference the Van Riebeeck and Wamakersvlei district councils asked why the National Statutory Council was not yet in session. As I understand it on the basis of what the State President envisaged the National Statutory Council will be a component either of South Africa’s Parliament or of the South African Government. As the State President said again today, he envisages including Blacks in the National Statutory Council in the process. I want to know from him from whom he received a mandate to do so. Where is his mandate to have Blacks governing Whites in South Africa?

Of course he has no such mandate! [Interjections.]

If he is going to tell us that he is going to get that mandate at his federal congress in Durban this year, I want to tell him his federal congress cannot give him such a mandate. The convention in South Africa is … [Interjections.]

Order!

The convention in South Africa is that a mandate is obtained from the voters of this country by means of a general election. [Interjections.]

I want to read a short quotation in this connection. I am not going to read a long quotation, because that wastes time. On page 176 of his book The Law and the Constitution Sir W Ivor Jennings writes as follows on the mandate:

He continues as follows on page 178:

That is the convention in South Africa. I want to remind the State President that in accordance with legislation he instituted, he can put a particular question to the people by means of a referendum. Naturally he will be able to tell us that he held a referendum two years ago and that 1,2 million voters in South Africa supported him in respect of his specific plan. I want to ask the State President, however, whether he knows how his voters feel about that plan of his now.

Do you know?

The hon member is welcome to speak, but in his constituency they did not tell the voters of South Africa that they wanted to bring Blacks into the South African Government.

And that they are going to make him president.

Yes, and that they can make him president. The public is so shocked that, for the sake of the theatrical effect, the State President repudiated his hon Minister of Foreign Affairs on this matter. This repudiation is over and done with now, however, and the hon the Minister is going ahead.

We want to place it on record that an election should have been in progress now. During the 1981 election, the State President and the other hon members who sit on that side of the House did not ask for a mandate in respect of the Bills this Parliament repealed last year and is repealing this year. The hon member for Innesdal, specifically, did not ask for even a tiny piece of mandate for the left-wing, radical standpoints he adopts in this House. He did not ask for a single mandate. Not a single one!

Bring the hon member for Waterberg to stand against me in Innesdal. [Interjections.]

We do not think so much of the hon member for Innesdal that we shall let our hon leader stand against him. Instead, we shall send one of our most junior candidates to stand against him, and we shall defeat him; a sparrow would defeat him. [Interjections.]

You are in for a surprise. [Interjections.]

I want to put it to the State President that his advisors are not informing him on the public feeling against him. [Interjections.] I walked into a shop in Cape Town the other day. A lady came to me and said: “Mr Langley, I voted yes; I could cut off my hand! People from Malmesbury walk in here and say they could kick themselves for having voted yes.” The hon member for De Kuilen must tell the State President what one of his old friends said to him last night. He said to the hon member: “There is no one in South Africa who still says he voted yes. When one looks for them, they have disappeared.” [Interjections.] Not one of them is to be found. [Interjections.]

In fact, the State President can even ask his hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to tell him what happened to him in his own constituency. Why does the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs not tell him that a motion of no-confidence was moved against him.

Where?

Order!

The hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply …

Where? Where? You are lying! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw that remark.

Sir, that motion of no-confidence was never moved against me. Nevertheless I withdraw my words. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg made three observations here to which I should like to react. Firstly, the hon member raised the issue of whether or not the State President and the hon members on this side of the House had a mandate to implement the policy which they are at present implementing. The Government’s standpoint in this regard, in the words of the State President, is quite clear. We instituted this Parliament on the strength of a mandate which we obtained at a referendum. [Interjections.] We also made it very clear during that referendum that we were engaged in a process of seeking a political accommodation for the Blacks of this country. The State President went further and declared that should it be deemed necessary, a mandate would be sought from the voters again.

The question that now arises however is: Whose mandate does the hon member Mr Theunissen have to be sitting where he is sitting?

The Conservatives among … [Interjections.]

Order!

The same applies to a group of those hon members who were elected in 1981 on the basis of the NP’s election manifesto which was expressly opposed to …

To power-sharing.

… something like the creation of a Coloured homeland.

The hon member says: “like power-sharing”. One of the problems which the CP is experiencing is a credibility problem. [Interjections.] I should now like to quote for something to this House, and then the hon members themselves can calmly decide whether a party that makes these statements can in fact lay claim to any credibility. Their leader, the hon member for Waterberg, stated that the Rev Alan Hendrickse of the Labour Party had already accepted a Coloured state, although as part of a federation. According to him the CP stands much closer to the Labour Party than other parties in this regard. [Interjections.] That is the standpoint of a party which maintains that it has credibility and a mandate for its policy. The Labour members within Parliament appointed a committee to inquire into constitutional matters. I now challenge any member of the CP to stand up during this debate and to say which one of the Labour Party members, who are members of that constitutional committee, would support this standpoint and who are closer to the CP than they were before that statement was made.

There is a second point which the hon member for Soutpansberg made, to which I should like to react very directly. He said that the CP was not apologetic as far as the Whites’ cause was concerned. If he implied thereby that the NP is not apologetic as far as the White’s cause is concerned, it is a distortion of the reality. It is not true, but what is infact true is that the NP, under the leadership of the State President, is convinced that the interests of the Whites adjoin those of the other groups in this country and are in fact intertwined with their interests. When we therefore serve the interests of other parties and other groups we are also promoting the interests of the Whites. We are not apologising for being apologists for the rights of the Whites. The time has come in this country for us to look at people as people. An elderly person, an aged person, is a human being whether he be White or Black. A person who is unemployed and hungry is a human being, and he does not become less hungry because he is White or because he is Black. We are fighting for South Africa, and when we bargain and negotiate with foreigners, we are fighting for our Republic and for all its peoples.

You have not got a mandate.

There is a very close correlation between a person’s expectations and a person’s fears. An equilibrium must be maintained between fears and expectations. [Interjections.]

Order!

If one demands more and expects more from this country than it can give one, then it has a direct effect on the extent of one’s fear. Therefore it is important that attention should be given to the fears or the lack of self-confidence in certain people, and that the expectations and aspirations of others should be scaled down. The only way in which one can do this, is by exposing people to one another so that they can articulate their fears and expectations in one another’s company. Today the State President put it so correctly and effectively when he said:

For this one needs a multifaceted negotiating strategy in which a variety of people have to be involved on various social levels. With all due respect, I should like to tell the hon members of the PFP that their national convention model cannot succeed. The tension factor between the left-wing and right-wing groups is too high. It would not even be possible to hold a national convention among the Whites. It is even less possible to hold a national convention among the Blacks, and as tragic as it may be to say this, one could hardly hold a successful national convention among Christians of this country. The CP prides itself on the standpoint that they have a policy of negotiation and that they want to negotiate the final borders of this country, but from a position of strength. I am of the opinion that these standpoints are merely a flight from reality.

Negotiation is time-consuming within the South African context, and in today’s society it is even more time-consuming than in other societies. Therefore it is important that a spirit of trustfullness should be created in which people can win and lose arguments without losing the debate. It is important that we have more and more to say to one another about things which we have in common and less about differences.

The State President is furthering this process in the numerous discussions he is holding with the TBVC countries, the national states, the urban leaders, the church leaders and so on. I respectfully submit that it is my conviction that time must be found for the State President to negotiate, face to face, with the Black leaders in this country. I think that the time can be found.

There are a few foreign political nit-pickers are wandering about in this country. I am not referring to important people but to people such as the Solarz’s, the Greys and the Fauntroys. A discussion with critical Black leaders can do more to ensure peace and security in this country and to promote South Africa’s image abroad than a discussion with some of these hon gentlemen.

It is my conviction that some of these discussions should be downgraded to what I should like to call back-bench discussions and some of these back-bench discussions, in a manner of speaking, should be upgraded to top level discussions with the State President. It is only when leaders in South Africa are seen to be deliberating with one another in earnest about the future that one can allay their fears and satisfy their expectations. It should remain an ideal that we speak to one another about the quality of life of our people, and how to improve it. We must not merely become ensnared in debates on the structures within which we want to speak to one another about the quality of life.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Krugersdorp. He will understand my wanting to raise a specific topic and therefore not reacting to what he said.

I am standing here as a Western Cape man who has often advocated the retention of influx control and today I should like to refer to this matter. When we speak about influx control and look at the facts we have before us, we must also pay attention to the origins of influx control, why influx control was introduced, whether it is unique to South Africa, the methods which are applied to make it operate, whether those methods were successful or not and what the alternative methods are.

If one looks back into the history of mankind in order to search for the origins of influx control, one finds it in Paradise. Influx control is nothing but a restriction on the free movement of people. The first time it was applied with success was when Adam and Eve were not allowed to return to Paradise. [Interjections.] If it were not for the Fall and the linguistic confusion which followed, we would not have known anything like influx control.

I do not think we have to spend a lot of time discussing with each other the reasons why people want influx control and want to apply it. Briefly stated, I think it is for the sake of the protection of one’s own interests. When we ask each other why people want influx control, we must ask at the same time why the idea originated that it should take place. People want influx control because other people move.

In history people moved mainly for political, economic and even religious reasons. That is how my ancestors came to this country, having moved for religious reasons. In today’s First World conditions people move mainly for economic reasons. The fact remains that people want to move from something less to something more agreeable. It is as simple for people to move as it is for hon members in this House to change their place of abode. People are very keen to move to the so-called bright lights.

It was my doubtful privilege to have taken photographs last year of a group of people at the Kruger National Park who had migrated from Mozambique. They had had to walk at night through mine-fields on the other side of the fence and clear across the Kruger National Park; they had braved lions, elephants and other wild animals and had walked their feet to the bone in order to arrive at the other side. One wonders what it is that motivates people to move.

As far as the freedom of movement of people in South Africa and especially in the Western Cape is concerned we must ask ourselves this question: What would this country have been like had the sea not been separated us from certain West European countries and if people had streamed into this country at will? What causes an influx? It is caused by each one of us that is economically active in this country whether we are employers or people who have climbed higher up the labour ladder, causing a vacuum to develop below us.

It is also interesting to note that there is not only influx control; there is exit control as well. I should briefly like to refer to the Wall between East and West Berlin where even exit control cannot be applied in a foolproof manner. People are prepared to defy even death, for the sake of their freedom, or because they want to move away from something disagreeable to something more agreeable.

Is influx control unique to South Africa? My answer is no. Influx control as such is applied all over the world.

Not on a racist basis.

It is not unique to South Africa. Influx control in Holland is applied to Hollanders and in Switzerland to the Swiss. I can mention further examples. The Germans apply influx control to Turks. The difference is that we apply it to people with South African citizenship.

Yes, a big difference.

On 23 June 1952 Dr Verwoerd took the first step in the direction of the abolition of influx control. Time does not permit me to read it out, but hon members can find it in Hansard: House of Assembly, Volume 80, col 9159/60. The hon member for Kuruman who can be so derogatory towards us, should go and read that speech by Dr Verwoerd. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Kuruman say that the hon member for False Bay was lying (lieg)?

No Sir, I did not say that.

It certainly sounded like it.

I said that the hon member was confessing (bieg). He is in fact confessing.

The hon member may proceed.

I am not going to react to that except to say: The hon member has repeatedly levelled accusations at me in this regard in this House. He says that I gave in to the temptation of influx control. Allow me to say just this to the hon member: Since he has entered politics, he has given in to many more temptations than I or any other member has ever done. The day when South Africa needed him and when he had to stand up for South Africa, he gave up.

Where? [Interjections.]

When you people streamed out.

Yes, when the hon member streamed out.

Time does not permit me to quote everything I would like to quote, but I want to refer to what Dr Verwoerd said in 1952 when he abolished the pass laws. He said:

If we abolish things today, however, we are selling out the White man, according to the CP’s political interpretation.

Let us take a look at the history of False Bay and let us go back to the year 1657 when Jan van Riebeeck received directive from Commissioner Van Goens to build a canal from the False Bay coast to Maitland. The whole idea was to separate people from one another, to separate the settlers on this side from the so-called uneducated people on the other side. The canal was surveyed and was 6 666 roods long—quite an interesting figure. It was to be guarded by 17 forts. Van Riebeeck then wrote to the Lords XVII that he did not have the money and that they should send him 1 700 “skoppen” and “graven”. That is how this wonderful idea was killed by practical reality.

The Natal Volksraad had to pass legislation, less than a year after Blood River, the so-called “Wet op Kafferboerderij” of 1839, in order to prevent the White burgers of Natal from keeping too many Blacks on their farms.

Since the beginning of our history there have been more than 900 measures to enforce influx control. I must make haste but I should like to say that between 1916 and the present day 18 million arrests have been made in terms of the pass laws in order to enforce influx control. In 1974 we arrested almost 1 700 people every day. What was the result of this? Ten million Blacks are living in so-called White South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am sure the hon member for False Bay will not expect me to follow on his historic analysis, most of which was inaccurate, I must add, of the history of the pass laws. I will have something to say about influx control and the pass laws during the course of my own speech.

I want to say at once that the speech of the State President this afternoon was a bitter disappointment to me. I was hoping that we would have from the State President an indication of his understanding of the situation which obtains in the RSA at present. We heard none of that. We heard more about Gaddafi and Libya than about the daily killings and the violence which plague us in South Africa today. We had no indication whatever that the State President appreciates that South Africa’s very viability is at stake. Her economic viability is at stake at present. We are faced with the grimmest statistics every day concerning unemployment and inflation, and, indeed, I read a headline in one of the English language newspapers only the other day saying: “South Africa faces bankruptcy.” A country like this, with our vast resources and our expertise is facing bankruptcy! Once again all the punitive measures of sanctions and disinvestment are before Congress in the United States right now. We were hoping that the State President would give us today some really positive news of fundamental changes to be introduced during what is left of this session and in the extended session we are going to have later this year.

Instead of that we had a long dissertation about the Communist Party and the ANC, and for the rest, all we heard was a repetition of the speech the State President made at the opening of Parliament on 31 January. The State President said that South Africa was engaged in an urgent process of reform. That was what he told us this afternoon. What evidence of this have we had, however? What does the State President understand by the term “urgent”? In January 1985—last year—he told Parliament, and I quote:

In January this year he said that among the most important matters that would be translated into legislation, would be the restoration of the South African citizenship of those Black persons who permanently reside in the RSA. I ask the State President: Are we going to get that piece of legislation during the current session of Parliament or during the extended session? I think this House and the country are entitled to an answer to that question.

In January 1985 the State President told Parliament that steps to promote orderly urbanisation and to eliminate the negative and discriminatory aspects of influx control “are receiving urgent consideration”. In January this year when he opened Parliament, he said that among other measures we would shortly be presented with legislation to remove existing influx control measures which applied to South African citizens in the RSA. The present system, he told us again “is too costly and has become obsolete”.

The State President informed us today that a White Paper on this costly and outdated system would be available next week and that legislation would be forthcoming later this year. This, then, is urgency! Well over a whole year has elapsed in this urgency about dealing with one of the most abrasive laws on our Statute Book and the greatest cause of racial friction in South Africa!

Does the State President hold by the statement made in his advertisement earlier this year—in large print—that by July 1 the pass system would be scrapped? I think we are entitled to know whether the State President intends to hold to that statement. He stated it quite unequivocally in the advertisement. He said that the pass system would be scrapped by July 1 this year. Does he intend to keep to that? Does he stand by that undertaking and, if so, will he call a halt to all the pass arrests that are still taking place; and, if not, why not? I want to tell him that last year, while he was saying that legislation on urbanisation would be forthcoming, throughout that year 132 000 people were arrested in terms of pass laws and influx control measures.

It seems as though the State President and all his fellow NP members live in their own cosy little cocoons of White privilege. They do not know what goes on; they are insulated from the realities of life as it is lived by Black South Africans in the RSA. [Interjections.]

Sir, have you ever heard such a naïve confession as the one that we heard this afternoon from the State President regarding the Coloured labour preference system? He said that his party had abandoned the system last year—it was in fact the year before—because he had discovered that it did not work! Farmers needed labour, he said, and the Black people needed the jobs. He said that he stood by that system because he knew that allowing Blacks in would create bad conditions.

Now look at the conditions that have been created! KTC, New Crossroads and Old Crossroads are all monuments to the Coloured labour preference system. [Interjections.] Because of that system, no houses were built and, irrespective of the law, the Black people flocked in. The push factor of poverty in those miserable homelands, and the pull factor of the opportunity to earn a livelihood in the Western Cape were much stronger than any law that had been passed by the NP Government. However, the incredible thing is that it took the Government 30 years to realise that the Coloured labour preference system simply could not work!

It seems to me that the utterly cynical remark which I read which was made by Dr Piet Cillié to journalist Stanley Uys holds good for this whole Government. He said:

Now can one imagine a remark like that— sophistry of the worst kind! Piet Cillié is not just any ordinary little Nat like the hon members sitting opposite us. Piet Cillié was the éminence grise of Dr Verwoerd, his mentor, his admirer and his greatest publicist. I want to know, do hon members opposite agree that they had to try apartheid to show that it would not work? I find that the most cynical remark I have read in years, when I think of the millions of lives that have been ruined in the interim of showing that apartheid does not work, the millions of people arrested under the pass laws, the millions of people removed under forced removals schemes, the half a million Coloured and Indian people chucked out of their houses and businesses under the Group Areas Act, all in the sacred name of apartheid and it all had to be tried in order to show that it could not work! Sir, ten minutes is not enough to show what apartheid has done to people in this country.

I want to conclude by adding to the appeal made earlier by my hon leader that District Six be given back to the Coloured people.

Hear, hear!

I have another appeal to make to the State President. That is that he reverses the decision on the incorporation of Moutse into kwaNdebele, which I believe stems straight from him. [Interjections.] He knows it has caused 120 000 people in a peaceloving, really rather conservative Black rural community to be turned into a bloody mess; that is the only way I can describe it, and I mean that literally, with the killings that are going on in that area.

The State President has vast powers under the new system. All he has to do is to lift his pinkie and he can reverse the decision which he took and the Cabinet endorsed, and which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning told me was irreversible. The State President can reverse it, and we badly need gestures of conciliation at this particular time in South Africa’s history.

Mr Chairman, time does not permit me to reply to the hon member for Houghton. I would like to refer, however, to certain actions on the part of hon members of the PFP in Natal recently. I should like to know what her reaction is to this because, although one may disagree with her politically, one must have the highest regard for her as a person. As for her actions outside Parliament, she is well mannered. I am referring now, however, to the despicable, tasteless and demeaning actions of certain hon members of the PFP at the opening of the Playhouse Opera House in Durban. [Interjections.]

They organised a boycott and they publicly protested. They even went so far as trying to picket the opening.

That is a democratic right. [Interjections.]

Those hon members accepted tickets well knowing that the State President would open the Opera House. Yet they did not turn up. Instead they staged a public protest.

I would submit, Sir, that this is not politics. It is simply bad manners. It indicates lack of taste and an absence of common decency. [Interjections.] After all, the State President was not present there in his capacity as leader of the National Party. He was there in his capacity as Head of State. As such, he should have been respected. [Interjections.]

Order!

I submit, furthermore, that this is not only an attack on the State President in his capacity as head of this country but is also an attack directed at the initiative of Natalians to promote the performing arts in Natal. [Interjections.] No responsible citizen of Natal…

Order! This debate will continue until Monday. Hon members of the PFP will therefore have ample opportunity to refute any of the arguments advanced by this hon member. I am not going to have him shouted down. The hon member Mr Schutte may proceed.

There were a number of Cabinet members of the kwaZulu Government present. Yet the hon members of the PFP decided that the occasion was not for them. The hon member for Berea said a few days before the opening that he was going to organise a mass stay-away. What happened, however? Of the almost 1 500 people who were expected to attend, only about 25 did not turn up.

Despite the protest, the State President was given one of his warmest receptions in Natal ever. It was clear that the people of Natal, of whatever political persuasion, reject this tasteless, childish and despicable behaviour.

I would like to take the matter a little further and I would like to ask the hon members for Greytown and Pietermaritzburg South—unfortunately they are not here— where they were the day after the opening, that was the Sunday.

Lamontville.

They attended a memorial service for Mr Moses Mabhida, the General Secretary of the South African Communist Party, in Pietermaritzburg. [Interjections.] They owe an explanation to the country and to Natal. They were not prepared to attend a function opened by the State President of this country, and they made a public scene of that, but they were prepared to attend a memorial service for the General Secretary of the Communist Party of South Africa.

*I want to refer to the economic pressure on South Africa and the opportunities this offers South Africa. The Republic is under economic pressure, and capital inflow by means of loans has been cut off to a great extent. This is not due to economic considerations. I believe that at this stage, after the tremendous drop in the oil price, South Africa is the last thing that the banks that started this are thinking about. It is very interesting that whenever one tries to hurt someone else, one always hurts oneself even more in the process.

This is not the first time South Africa has been put under pressure. There was the oil boycott against us which forced us to react by erecting the Sasol 2 and Sasol 3 plants. There was also the arms embargo which forced us to develop our own technology and apply it in practice. We did so with such signal success that at this stage we are an armaments exporting country. We are even able to manufacture our own helicopters and naval strike craft.

Outside pressure has forced us to develop technology, something we would not have done otherwise. It has also made us more independent in the long run. We are now once again heading for such a time, as far as outside pressure in the economic sphere is concerned. I do not condone it; all I am saying is that this offers us the opportunity once again to make ourselves economically strong and more independent.

It is very popular to consider only the problems of the capital component. I want to suggest, however, that this is not the solution. If one looks at the fundamental issues one has to look at all the production factors and consider how they may be optimally utilised. If one were to do that, capital would also move further in the economy. Nor is this the only solution. One also has to consider the business environment and ways and means to improve and encourage this.

The Government has already done a great deal to make the economy more productive and to promote a positive business climate. If one looks at manpower, various aspects can be mentioned, for example the massive training projects that have been launched and the tremendous amounts that have been voted for education. This is being accorded the highest priority. When one looks at entrepreneurship one notes once again that training has played a major role. One could also refer to the Small Business Development Corporation. Unfortunately the implementation of the immigration policy is perhaps restrictive in this regard and there is still an acute shortage of entrepreneurs.

Vigorous efforts are also being made to improve the business atmosphere. One could refer to the reduction in taxation rates as well as the Temporary Removal of Restrictions on Economic Activities Bill. I am surprised to see that this Bill in particular is receiving so little publicity. There are also very vigorous measures to promote privatisation.

As far as capital is concerned, our latest Budget is also a very fine example of reduced demands on domestic capital. However, in our present circumstances we are compelled to rely very heavily on exports as a source of capital replenishment. With the lower rand value I do not think it would be unreasonable for us to set ourselves the goal of doubling our exports over a period of 3 to 5 years. In the same way that fuel production and armaments development were national priorities a short time ago, productivity and exports should now become national priorities. The potential definitely exists. There are shops in the USA that sell 70% South African goods. This goes to show what potential there is.

Methods to facilitate exports must be investigated. Because it is our aim to export labour, we shall have to investigate the creation of “foreign trade zones” as a matter of urgency. These zones hold major advantages for manufacturers that process imported products for export. Certain clothing industries are good examples in this regard. Some of the benefits to be derived from this are improved cash flow, the simplification of financial transactions and the elimination of quota complications.

These zones have been particularly successful in the USA. From 1970 to 1984 their numbers grew from 12 to 100 zones. More than 1 400 companies are operating in these zones, providing jobs for 54 000 people.

I am aware that various investigations into this matter have already been undertaken, but one of the advantages of outside pressure is greater urgency and a sense of purpose. I believe that this is one of the areas where we could strengthen our export effort considerably.

It is very clear that the Government, in reaction to outside pressure, is making our economy more productive across a very wide front. However, the private sector, too, has a duty in this regard. Lee Iaccoca, the former executive of the Ford and Chrysler companies expressed strong criticism of certain big American companies. He said they were solely geared to taking over other companies, rather than creating new jobs. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by making the statement that the State President with his new Black policy, is going to destroy his own White Afrikaner nation as well as the whole of White South Africa, which is historically linked to the Afrikaner nation in this country. I base this statement on views expressed by some of the greatest statesmen, Afrikaner statesmen, which this country has ever produced. In the first place I am referring to a statement made by Adv J G Strijdom, and I am quoting from Die Transvaler of 16 April 1958. He said:

In a speech on 23 January 1962, Dr H F Verwoerd said in Parliament:

Yet surely a multiracial state for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, is now the State President’s non-White policy for this country. What else is one undivided Republic of South Africa, with these components if not a single multiracial state? Within this single multiracial state, a single citizenship is, in addition, being granted to all people, which implies equal treatment and equal opportunities. Equal treatment and equal opportunities also mean for all these people that they must receive equal political treatment and opportunities. Surely it cannot be interpreted in any other way. It cannot involve merely the social or economic aspects. It involves political rights.

It takes the form of universal franchise and the same central governing authority, which also the policy of the State President. The State President declared on 22 February 1982 that he was not going to create a sovereign Parliament of their own for the Coloureds. There can only be one central governing authority in a country. Parliament is the central governing authority as far as the State President is concerned.

If he has changed his policy now and the State President intends to give the Blacks something else, then he could have given it to the Coloureds and Indians as well.

The State President’s own statement indicate indisputably, however, that it will be nothing but a central governing authority in which everybody will participate. He said:

And if Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks are in this one state, then Blacks are also included—

The State President is speaking here about the government of one racially mixed, multiracial state. He went on to say:

This afternoon the State President said that he wanted to go ahead with this statutory council. It is his intention of course to involve Chief Minister Buthelezi in this. Chief Minister Buthelezi has however stated certain conditions for his participation on this council. He said amongst other things that Nelson Mandela and other leaders must be released from prison so that they can all participate in this statutory council. He also said that the State President must announce the demise of this Tricameral Parliament. He must in other words declare it moribund and cause it to be removed from the scene, he said:

He therefore wants to appropriate the whole of South Africa for himself. He also said that the population register and the Group Areas Act had to be scrapped. He then said that the ban on all banned organisations had to be lifted and furthermore:

I should now like to ask the State President: If Mr Buthelezi continues to impose these conditions of his, is he prepared to comply with them by including that man in this statutory council for the sake of the Zulu nation—which he also wants to involve? Is he prepared to accept those conditions, or is he prepared to say no to him? Furthermore, if he were to say no to him, does it mean that he does not wish to negotiate any further with the Zulus? It is after all the body which he is introducing for those people, so that they can share in the central government of this country. [Interjections.]

With the new policy which the State President has accepted in respect of the non-Whites, and particularly with his Black policy, he has drawn a line through the NP policy of all his predecessors. In particular he has done this as regards the creator of that policy, Dr D F Malan at whose feet the State President boasts of having learnt his politics. It therefore seems to me that the State President had a very good teacher, but that Dr Malan did not have a very good pupil. [Interjections.]

These people—Dr Malan, Adv Strijdom and Dr Verwoerd—all said that this recipe of power-sharing with the Blacks would lead to the suicide of the Whites. [Interjections.] The State President has now accepted this recipe of suicide as being the nectar of life; for his own people as well. I should now like to put a question to him, because I have little time.

Since all other peoples in the world have their own fatherlands, with their own governments and their own self-determination, and while the NP has made peoples free in this country and given them their own fatherlands of which they can be proud and in which they can exercise self-determination, I should like to put the following question to the State President: Why is he not prepared to give his own people their own fatherland with self-determination without them having to share a government with other people in which those other people will have ascendancy? May all other peoples in the world except his own people enjoy that freedom? [Interjections.]

Then those hon members ask where that fatherland is! We shall tell them where that fatherland is. It is where the bodies of Whites lie buried who lost their lives as a result of this policy of power-sharing and where the vultures are going to gather to come and devour this country! [Interjections.]

The State President began the destruction of the old NP policy when he stopped listening to his old mentor.

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

No, I do not have time to reply to questions—least of all questions from that hon Deputy Minister; I dealt with him at Tukkies already. [Interjections.] He should rather answer my question of whether he was a racist when he supported the NP’s old policy of separate development; or did he never really support the policy of separate development while he was in the NP?

He is just a Goebbels! [Interjections.]

On 2 June 1965, when he was still occupying another position, the State President said in this House:

He has, however, not only knocked out the cornerstone to which his mentor referred; he has allowed the whole edifice to collapse onto the White people of South Africa! [Interjections.]

Now it is said that we have departed from the Westminister system where power-sharing meant: Winner takes all. We now find ourselves in a new dispensation of power-sharing, but the results of the new dispensation are still exactly the same. The fact remains that it still is a racially mixed Parliament and Cabinet, and this reflects a factual situation namely that Coloureds and Indians govern Whites. The CP rejects it on the basis of what our old mentors told us.

Mr Chairman, hopefully I will have time tomorrow to return to what the hon member for Koedoespoort said. The only thing I want to tell him now, is that he is labouring under an immense delusion. He is labouring under a false delusion, however. He finds himself in a dilemma in that he believes, as we believed earlier, that there is only absolute apartheid or absolute integration. One is either an absolute drunkard, therefore, or a complete teetotaller. The poor hon member does not realise there are stages in between.

[Inaudible.]

Fortunately for the NP we realise there are stages in between, and that Sap must not make a noise while I am speaking. [Interjections.] In the few minutes at my disposal, I merely want to return …

Order! The hon member for Rissik must contain himself.

Mr Chairman, the last time I appeared on a platform with the hon member for Rissik in his own constituency— on my own initiative and request—he fared very badly. I shall arrange to tackle him in his constituency again. Then he can try to have his say.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, I merely want to refer, with reference to the disclosure the hon member Mr Schutte has just told us about, to the hon members for Pietermaritzburg South and Greytown, who attended the memorial service for one Mr Moses Mabhida, the secretary of the SA Communist Party.

I do not know which of the feelings I experienced in that regard was stronger, shock or disapproval. To my mind one attends a funeral or a memorial service for only three reasons. One attends the funeral of one’s own intimate family or one’s friends who have died. I attended the funeral of my little boy. One also attends a funeral in an official capacity. I have attended funerals officially as a Member of Parliament and as a city council member. There is only one other reason for attending a funeral. That is when one is paying tribute and homage to someone one regards as a leader and a great person. I attended the funerals of Dr Verwoerd and Adv Strijdom for that reason. The hon member for Soutpansberg will remember that his brother and I inter alia conveyed soil in wheelbarrows to fill in that grave. That was because he was a leader in whose leadership we believed, and to whom we wanted to pay homage. In view of this, I now want to ask those hon members why they attended that memorial service. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.